ARRESTS, SEARCHES AND SEIZURES Malacat Case: found in possession of a grenade yet considering that the search was

ade yet considering that the search was invalid the

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II PRE-FINALS evidence or grenade that was taken from him was rendered or decreed to be inadmissible in court.

I. ARRESTS General Rule: any evidence obtained in violation of Sec. 2, Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution among
others is inadmissible for any purpose or in any proceedings
Sec. 2, Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution:
People v. Bongcarawan
Bongcarawan was searched by the security guards of the vessel and it yielded a positive result. He
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers argued that the search was invalid. SC said the search was valid because it was with the consent of
and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever Bongcarawan. It further went on to rule that assuming arguendo that the search conducted on
nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or Bongcarawan was illegal, the evidence obtained from him would still be admissible in court.
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or Justification:
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and The search, although it may be regarded as illegal, was not done with the intervention of the State. SC
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or made it clear that the exclusionary rule with respect to evidence illegally obtained may only be
things to be seized. invoked if the search that is decreed illegal is done with the active intervention of the State or any of
its agents.

Person: refers to natural persons, human beings, or individuals. Exception to the General Rule: Even if the search is illegal but the search is done without the
intervention of the State or is done by a mere private person, the evidence obtained thereby may still
Protection enshrined in the provision applies to: Filipinos, foreigners, including their respective be admissible in court. The proscription against unreasonable search and arrest as well as the
offices. exclusionary rule in respect to evidence obtained may only be invoked if the search or the illegal arrest
is done with the active intervention of the State.
In a US Supreme Court case, it was also made to apply to a person who was inside a telephone booth,
exemplifying how sacred this right is. People v. Marti
Marti sent a package through a private courier. Without his knowledge, the staff of the private courier
Exclusionary Rule inspected the package that was sent by him and it was found out that it contained marijuana. On the
Par. 2, Sec. 3, Art. 3, of the 1987 Constitution: basis of such finding, Marti was prosecuted for illegal possession of prohibited drugs. He objected
invoking the rule under the Constitution to the end that any evidence obtained in violation of the right
. against unreasonable search or arrest should be inadmissible in evidence. SC declared that the
Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be exclusionary rule with respect to evidence illegally obtained may only be successfully invoked if the
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. search or the illegal search is conducted by the State or any of its agents.

Waterous Drugs Corp v. NLRC

An employee was dismissed because it was found out that he was receiving kickbacks from the supplier
People v. Caballes of the company because the employer intercepted a mail matter that was addressed to that employee.
Code: kakawati leaves. Transporting stolen goods was illegal yet it was found out that the search done The envelope was opened without the knowledge of the employee, although it was addressed to him
by the policemen was likewise illegal. Acquitted. and it was found out that it contained the check representing the kickback. In the labour proceedings,
the employer introduced as evidence the check confiscated from the employee and the latter objected
People v. CA because according to him, it was the fruit of a poisonous tree. SC disagreed the search was made
Code: raid of Apartment No. 1, adjacent to Abegail’s store. The search was declared invalid, so accused without the intervention of the state. The exclusionary rule in respect to the evidence illegally obtained
was acquitted, even if it was found out that the accused was in possession of explosives. may not be successfully invoked therein.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II: PRE-FINALS TRANSCRIPT Page 1

Rationale of the Constitutional Provision: Warrant of Arrest
The Bill of Rights is directed against the state because they serve as limitations in the exercise of its  process or a legal document issued by the court of law or a tribunal clothed with the
inherent powers. Any evidence illegally obtained will be admitted in court if such illegal search is authority commanding or directing the law enforcement agencies to arrest a designated
perpetrated by private individuals. person. For such warrant of arrest to be validly issued, the same must be done with the
concurrence of the four requisites enumerated.
Caveat: The ruling hinges only on the admissibility of evidence, not the liability of persons making
unlawful arrests and/or searches. REQUISITES FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A VALID WARRANT OF ARREST OR A SEARCH WARRANT:
 SC does not exculpate criminal liability of those making unlawful arrests and/or searches 1. Probable cause

Weird Case: Zulueta v. CA Probable Cause

Zulueta is the wife of a doctor. She suspected that her husband has an illicit affair. She went to the  not the same as suspicion; more than suspicion
clinic of her husband. Without the knowledge of the latter, she ransacked the drawer. It was forcibly  refers to such fact or circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent man to believe
opened and there upon she discovered that there were letters sent by the mistress. She filed a case that a crime has been committed and that the person sought to be arrested is the one
against the husband, using the incriminating evidence as proof of her concubinage. The husband responsible for the crime
objected, probably invoking the case of Marti, Waterous Drugs and Bongcarawan or the provision  generally based on facts and circumstances
under Sec. 3 Article 3 to the end that any evidence illegally obtained should be inadmissible in court. SC
said that the evidence obtained by the wife is inadmissible in court, notwithstanding the fact that the Suspicion: result of a speculation or guess work; not based on facts or circumstances.
illegal search was perpetrated by a private individual.
 The ruling in the case of Zulueta is diametrically opposed to the rulings in the cases of 2. Such probable cause must be personally determined by the judge
Bongcarawan, Waterous Drugs, and Marti.
Which judge can issue a warrant of arrest?
GENERAL RULE: Warrantless search or arrest is unlawful and whatever evidence recovered will be All judges at all court levels have the power to issue a warrant of arrest.
inadmissible in any court or proceeding.
How about Administrative Tribunals?
EXCEPTION: If the warrantless search or arrest is done by a private individual, it is then valid because Morano vs Vivo: SC ruled that administrative bodies may issue warrants of arrest but the same may
Sec. 2 Article 3 is only applicable when the warrantless search or arrest is done by the State or any of only be done to carry out a final finding of a violation of the law as the case of enforcing a
its agents. deportation order or an order of contempt.

Protection against unreasonable searches and arrests granted to juridical persons Example:
 When the Labor Arbiter of the NLRC conducts a hearing and then somebody disturbs the
David v. Arroyo proceeding, hemay cite that person in contempt, and may order the arrest of that person
During the celebration of the People Power, the supporters of Erap rallied to Malacañan, such that even if the labor arbiter of the NLRC is an administrative body.
Gloria declared of State of National Emergency and pursuant to which the PNP rounded up  If there is then a final order of deportation of a foreigner, the BID commissioner may then
the premises of the Daily Tribune and Malaya Newspaper and they conducted a search without a issue a warrant of arrest for the apprehension of that person. But as a rule, the BID
warrant. SC declared that the prohibition under unreasonable search and arrest is also applicable to commissioner may only issue a warrant of arrest for purposes of carrying out and order of
juridical persons like the Daily Tribune and Malaya Newspaper. deportation and not for the purposes of conducting an investigation
 House of Representatives, Senate or any committee thereof has the power to conduct
Sec. 2 Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution protects only against unreasonable search and arrest inquiries in aid of legislation
 does not protect from search or arrest that is considered however as legal Arnault vs Nazareno:
 As a General Rule: a search and arrest is valid or done legally if the same is covered by a Administrative bodies, even Congress, have the power to issue a warrant of arrest but only to carry out
search warrant or a warrant of arrest as the case may be. a final determination of a violation of the law

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II: PRE-FINALS TRANSCRIPT Page 2

Remember: Warrant of arrest may only be issued by administrative bodies if only to carry out a final Sec. 5, Par. A, Rule 112, ROC
determination or final finding of a violation of the law. Within 10 days after the filing of the information in court, the judge has to personally evaluate the
records of the case and the resolution of the fiscal. The judge may dismiss the case is he finds that
Different ruling reached in Harvey v. Santiago (regarded as an exception) there is no evidence showing probable cause. Conversely, if records would show that the evidence is
Then commissioner Santiago of BID issued a warrant of arrest if only to apprehend those persons for showing probable cause, judge may issue a warrant of arrest or may issue a commitment order if the
them to be investigated. Harvey questioned the validity of the arrest because according to him, citing accused is already arrested without a warrant.
the case of Morano, the BID commissioner may only issue a warrant of arrest if there is only an order  In case of doubt, the judge will direct the prosecution; direct the complainant to provide for
of deportation. But in this case, the order of arrest was issued even without the BID having issued yet additional evidence within five (5) days from notice and such incident must be
the order of deportation. SC upheld the issuance of warrant of arrest because it was established that resolved within a period of thirty (30) days from the submission of such required additional
there was already a prior surveillance that was conducted. There was already a preliminary finding evidence.
that indeed the respondents who were to be arrested were already committing a crime, but the
general rule is that in the case of Morano v. Vivo. In other words: Sec 5 (a) Rule 112, ROC, the judge is not mandated to conduct a personal examination
of the complainant and his witnesses before he can issue a warrant of arrest. Again, all that the judge
GENERAL RULE: All judges on any court levels can issue a warrant of arrest must do is just to evaluate the records of the case, including the resolution of the fiscal.

EXCEPTION: Administrative bodies, given that there is already a final determination of a violation of Reason behind the relaxation of the rule with respect to the issuance of the warrant of arrest
the law  before the case is filed in court, it already underwent a preliminary investigation conducted
by the fiscal wherein he already determined the existence of probable cause.
EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION: Administrative bodies that have already a preliminary finding that
person to be arrested had violated the law. Distinguish from Search Warrant
For purposes of search warrant, the application for the issuance is filed directly with the judge or
3. After examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses directly to the court. But in respect to a warrant of arrest, normally before the case is filed in court the
produced case must be filed in the office of the prosecutor. Such that when the fiscal finds probable cause that is
the time that the information is filed in court.
Soliven v. Makasiar
Is the Judge mandated to conduct a personal examination of the complainant before he can issue a To be simple: with respect to the issuance of a warrant of arrest there is already, more or less a
warrant of arrest? preliminary finding of probable cause and such circumstance is not obtaining in respect to the
 NO, not withstanding the clear import of Sec. 2, Article 3. issuance of a warrant of arrest.
 To require a judge to conduct a personal examination before he would issue a warrant of
arrest would eat up the precious time of the court. Pro-Tip:
Based on experience, more or less, as soon as the information is filed in court it will only take 2 or 3
Rule: a judge issuing a warrant of arrest is not anymore required to conduct a personal examination of days or within 1 week there will be a warrant of arrest. On the lapse of the ten (10) days, judge can still
the complainant and its witnesses. All that the judge must do is to evaluate the records of the case, issue a warrant of arrest, although they are mandated or as a rule that it has to be done within a period
evaluate the affidavit complaint, the supporting evidence, the affidavit of witnesses and counter of 10 days.
affidavit if any, as well as a the resolution of the investigating prosecutor.
When lawyer for the accused, what to do.
Judge is not duty bound to accept the resolution of the fiscal File a motion for a judicial determination of probable cause. Use the same provision of the law or the
 Judge must come up with his own personal determination in the existence of absence of Rule 112 , Sec . 5 (a). Once filed, judge will be compelled to examine or evaluate the records of the
probable cause. He should not rely on the findings or resolutions of the fiscal. case. He will be mandated to study the case meticulously, such that in case of doubt, the judge will
Reason: the resolution of the fiscal is merely with respect to the existence or absence of probable issue an order directing the complainant or the fiscal to present additional evidence and such incident
cause for purposes of indictment or for purposes of filing information in court. will be decided within a period of 30 days.
 probable cause to be determined by the judge is for purposes of issuing a warrant of arrest.  Issuance of the warrant of arrest will be forestalled because there will be then a hearing.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II: PRE-FINALS TRANSCRIPT Page 3

  Must be filed before the issuance of the warrant of arrest. GENERAL RULE: imperfection or mistake in the description of the person sought to be arrested will
invalidate an arrest to a person
GENERAL RULE: Judges are not duty bound to personally examine the complainant and his witness. He
only needs to examine the records of the case and the resolution of the fiscal, in which he is not also EXCEPTION: If the arresting officer enforcing the warrant has personal knowledge of the arrest or by a
bound to follow. descriptio personae

DIFFERENCE OF JUDGE AND FISCAL’S DETERMINATIONS: Once the warrant of arrest is issued, copies of will be furnished to the law enforcement agencies,
 FISCAL is merely in respect to the existence of absence of probable cause for purposes of particularly the PNP.
indictment, for purposes of filing an information in court.
 JUDGE determines the probable cause for purposes of issuing a warrant of arrest. Sec. 4, Rule 113, ROC
The law enforcement agencies are given 10 days within which to act on that search warrant and the 10
JUDGE’S OPTIONS: day period should be reckoned from the date wherein the law enforcement agency concerned received
 Issue a warrant upon finding existence of probable cause. a copy of such warrant of arrest.
 In case of doubt, direct the prosecution and complainant to submit additional evidence, in  After that period that law enforcement agency concerned is mandated to submit a report to
accordance to sec. 5 (2), Rule 112, ROC the court on the action that it takes on that particular warrant of arrest.

4. Particularity in the description of the place to be searched or persons and/or things to be After 10 days, what happens to the warrant if the same is not served?
seized It will remain valid until the case is dismissed. The 10 day period is merely for the law enforcement
agency to act on the warrant of arrest and for them to submit to the court the report as to the actions
Rule: if the full name of the person and the address are known, they should be stated in the warrant. that they will take on that particular warrant of arrest.

Are John Doe warrants valid? (In case the name of the accused is not known) Sec. 6, Rule 113, ROC
 It depends.  A warrant of arrest, as distinguished from a search warrant, may be served at anytime of the
 Valid: for as long as it is accompanied by a descriptio personae of the person to be arrested day or night.
(description of that person to be arrested to guide the law enforcement agencies on whom
to arrest pursuant to the particular warrant). Normally, a search warrant is usually served only on day time except if the judge states that it may be
 Invalid: If a John/Jane Doe warrant is issued without an accompanying descriptio personae, enforced during night time.

People v. Tiu Won Chua Sec. 7, Rule 113, ROC

The warrant of arrest was against Timothy Chua but the person arrested is Tiu Won Chua. The officer arresting a particular person against whom a warrant is already issued by the court may not
 Warrant was accompanied by a descriptio personae, the address was stated in the warrant have with him a copy of a warrant while he is affecting an arrest. What is important is that the officer
itself. knows already that there is a pending warrant against that person.
 Arresting officers had personal knowledge as of the identity of person to be because they
conducted a prior surveillance. Villaruiz Case
 An error or mistake in the description of a person may be cured by a descriptio personae Villaruiz is a Cebuana and her boyfriend was British national. They were accused of abducting and
or by the personal knowledge of the officer enforcing the warrant. killing a child. Villaruiz was arrested by police officer in Manila which at that time, did not have with
him a copy of the warrant of arrest. It was questioned by the defense, yet it was ruled that arrest was
Distinguish from People vs Del Norte valid after all, there is already a pending warrant for the arrest of Villaruiz.
Officers enforcing the warrant were not the ones who conducted the prior surveillance. In fact they did
not know who Ising Diwa is. If the person was pointed to by the barangay official, who did not testify in Sec. 11, Rule 113, ROC
the course of the trial, it would be the pitfall of Del Norte. The police officer enforcing the warrant is justified to employ reasonable force in effecting the arrest.
 May even break open an enclosed premise or any enclosure to get in or out therefrom.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II: PRE-FINALS TRANSCRIPT Page 4

Situation: Examples of Continuing Offenses:
In the process of executing a warrant of arrest, if the informant decides not to proceed with the case, Subversion, rebellion, insurrection or any conspiracy or proposal to commit of these crimes, kidnapping
will the officer be held liable in case the one supposed to be arrested files a case? and serious illegal detention (especially if the victim is not yet recovered)
 when a person is committing a continuing offense, he can be arrested at anytime without
Answer: No. The police officer will not be held liable unless there is an order coming from the court need of any warrant of arrest
recalling the particular warrant and unless the same is communicated to the police officer concerned,
the police officer incurs no liability, the same as to search warrants. May there be a valid warrantless arrest pursuant to a mere reliable information?

Remember: A search warrant is good only for 10 days reckoned from the issuance thereof, but a People v. Nuevas
warrant of arrest is not necessarily invalid after the lapse of 10 days. Nuevas was validly arrested because he voluntarily surrendered the bag that he was carrying which
contained marijuana. Afterwards, Nuevas pointed to his colleagues, Din and Inocencio, and on the
General Rule: for an arrest to be valid, it has to be covered by a warrant of arrest basis of the tip off, Din and Inocencio were arrested. SC said that the arrest of Din and Inocencio was
invalid because a person cannot be arrested by a mere suspicion.
Exceptions under Sec. 5 Rule 113, ROC (Warrantless Arrest is Valid)
1.) In flagrante delicto (par. A) Important:
 when the person arrested is actually committing an offense, is about to commit an offense, Mere reliable information, without overt acts of felonious enterprise, is not enough.
or has committed an offense in the presence of the police officer or even a private citizen.
 even a civilian can effect an arrest for as long the person arrested is committing an offense in Distinguish from the cases of Montilla, Malmstedt, Maspil and Tangliben
his presence, or is about to commit an offense or has committed an offense The accused were also arrested pursuant to information, but they were given by a civilian informant of
 person arrested is caught red handed in the act of committing a crime; either he does the act the authorities.
in its consummated stage, in its executory stage or in its attempted stage.  In Nuevas, the accused himself, pointed the other malefactors
 Warrantless arrest of the accused were valid because the tip off were given by and the
Important: person making the arrest has actual or personal knowledge of the commission of the crime. accused, at the time of their arrest, were acting suspiciously.
It is either they saw it or he perceives the commission of the offense through his other senses.  Urgency was present because the accused was either boarding a vehicle, about to board a
vehicle, or had just disembarked from a vehicle.
People v. Claudio
Claudio boarded a bus. She was bringing with her a buri bag and inside it was marijuana. People v. Rodriguez and People v. Mengote
Unfortunately, she placed her bag right in front of a Patrolman, a NARCOM agent, who was very Tip off or information was also conveyed to the police authorities but through a telephone call,
familiar with the smell of marijuana. He reached inside the buri bag and found marijuana. He arrested meaning the informant was not even around at the time of the arrest of the accused.
Claudio. During the trial, Claudio objected on the admissibility of the evidence obtained contending
that it was the result of an illegal search, because at the time of the arrest, he did not know that the Cases of Aminnudin and Molina distinguished from Montilla, Malmstedt, etc
bag contained marijuana. SC disagreed. Perception of the offense need not be through the eyes only. Informants were, at the time of the arrest, present with the police authorities but SC held that arrests
It may be perceived through other senses, hearing, smell, sight, taste or touch. were invalid
 In Aminnudin, the police officers had at least 2 days within which to secure a warrant, yet
Continuing Offense they did not.
Umil v. Ramos  In Molina, the officers had 2 months within which to secure a warrant but did not bother to
Dural was arrested 3 days after the commission of the offense for killing 2 patrolmen. He protested to secure a warrant.
his arrest, contending that he was arrested three days after the commission of the offense. SC  Police authorities had more or less sufficient period of time to secure a warrant wherein
disagreed, because in that case Dural was said to be committing a continuing offense which they did not thus it was declared as invalid.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II: PRE-FINALS TRANSCRIPT Page 5

Aminnudin Case circumstances which would make up a probable cause on their part to believe that Herente was the
 identity of the accused known prior to the arrest as well as the vessel that will bring him to offender.
Iloilo
Take Note:
Maspil Case In a hot pursuit arrest, there should be a large measure of urgency between the commission of the
 had3 days to secure a warrant but they did not because the identity of the drug courier was crime and the actual arrest of the offender.
not known as well as the mode of transportation that would bring him to a particular place  warrantless arrest of the person in a warrantless arrest must not be too far removed
much less the date of arrival. from the commission of the offense.
 while it is true that there is sufficient period of time in which the police officers would have
secured a warrant, it is highly impossible for them because they did not know where the People vs Del Rosario
transaction would take place, they do not even know to whom the warrant should be He was arrested a day after the commission of the offense. SC said that the arrest was illegal because
addressed, much the place where the commodity would be dropped off. it was not covered by a warrant since there was once a cut of 1 day from the time of the commission of
the offense. Police officers should have secured a warrant.
2. Hot Pursuit Arrest (Par. B)  In order to be valid, there must be immediacy between the commission of the crime and the
 May be made by a law enforcer or a civilian is valid if an offense has just been committed time of arrest
and the person making the arrest has probable cause to believe, based on personal
knowledge that he acquired from other facts and circumstances that the person to be Umil v. Ramos modified by Del Rosario Case
arrested is the one who committed the offense. Nazareno was arrested for murder for 10 days after the commission of the offense yet the SC declared
the arrest as valid. The ruling is no longer controlling, but there is a peculiar circumstance in the case of
Distinguish from In Flagrante Delicto Arrest: Nazareno, because what was filed therein was a petition for habeas corpus for the release of Nazareno,
Person making the arrest has actual personal knowledge of the commission of the offense in flagrante but before the SC could decide on the case for habeas corpus the information was already filed in court
delicto arrest and the court wherein the case was filed already issued a commitment order, such made the petition
 has perceived the commission of the offense through his senses for habeas corpus moot and academic.
 in hot pursuit, it is not required that the person making the arrest has actually seen the
crime 3. Escape from penal institution where accused is serving final judgment or temporarily detained
pending the decision
People vs Padilla
2 officers positioned themselves in Abacan bridge. They did not actually see the side swiping incident, Reason: person is already a fugitive from justice; no longer need a warrant of arrest and can be
nor have actually seen Padilla committing the crime. SC held that they could arrest Padilla because they arrested at any time
may have not actually witnessed the incident but they have personally acquired knowledge of facts or
other circumstances which made them believe that Padilla was the offender. There was a report 4. Waiver of the right of the person arrested to object on the legality of the arrest
through the radio as relayed through the viper Manarang and they observed that the hood of the car
of Padilla was already dented, the plate number was dangling and matched the plate number that was Tips if you are the victim:
announced through the radio. All these circumstances impelled probable cause that Padilla was the Do not participate in the arraignment!
one referred to in the report.  before arraignment, question the validity of the arrest by filing a Motion to Quash the
Information grounded on Sec 3(c), Rule 117, ROC
People v. Herente  question the jurisdiction of the court over the person of the accused. It is only through
A report was relayed and acting on the report, the police officers went to the crime scene. They arrest in criminal cases that the trial court would acquire jurisdiction over the person
recovered the instrument of the crime. The witnesses pointed Herente as the culprit. Herente said that over the accused.
the arrest was illegal because it was not covered by a warrant. SC disagreed. Police officers may not  Failing to file a motion to quash the information would render your right as having been
have witnessed the commission of the crime yet they acquired personal knowledge of other facts and waived.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II: PRE-FINALS TRANSCRIPT Page 6

Sec 26, Rule 124, ROC b.) Private citizen
Putting up a bail no longer considered as a waiver of the right to question the validity of the arrest.  Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention under Article 267 of RPC.

Once a person is arrested it is expected that the person will be searched by the arresting officer or by a c.) If illegally detained
civilian (consequential search).  file a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under Rule 102, ROC or Writ of Amparo.
 if the arrest is illegal it would follow that the consequential search or the search that is  petitions for habeas corpus and amparo, although effective remedies, would be rendered
predicated on the preceding arrest would also be declared as illegal. moot and academic once an information of the person illegally detained is already filed in
court and once the court has already issued a commitment order.
If the arrest/search is illegal, what would happen to the evidence that is illegally confiscated?  When this happens, shift gears by filing a Motion to Quash the Information filed against you
May that be admitted in evidence? based on Sec 3, Par c, Rule 117, ROC
 question the jurisdiction of the court. Although by experience, this motion is usually not
Sec. 3, Par. 3, Article 3, 1987 Constitution granted yet this will be treated as a continuing objection in the illegality of the arrest.
General Rule: any evidence obtained in violation of Sec 2, Art 3 in the 1987 Constitution is  by filing this motion, you will not be deemed to have waived your right to question the
inadmissible in any purpose and in any proceedings. legality of the arrest
 Such rule applies only if the accused, through his lawyer, interposed a timely objection to the
admission of evidence otherwise illegally obtained, that has to be invoked. d.) If there are things taken from you
 failure to object would render evidence otherwise illegally obtained, admissible in court  Sue for Robbery, if there is employment of force, threat or intimidation.
 once the prosecution formally offers the evidence to the court, interpose the objection.
II. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
Instance when the evidence illegally obtained may be admitted
GENERAL RULE: For a search to be valid, it needs a search warrant
1. Failure to object on the admissibility of evidence
2. When the search, although illegal, was conducted without the intervention of the State or Search warrant is a court process directing or allowing the law enforcement agencies to search a
any of its agents particular place and confiscate or seize the items enumerated in the search warrant itself. For a search
3. When evidence although illegally obtained is being offered not against the person from warrant to be valid it has to be issued upon compliance of the four (4) requisites:
whom the same is taken but against the person making such illegal search or arrest
(1) There should be probable cause
Example:
I am illegally searched by a police officer without a warrant. I offered my objection that such is illegal. Probable cause refers to such facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably prudent man to
During trial, when the shabu is offered against me, I timely interposed my objection it should be believe that an offense has been committed and the objects sought in connection therewith are in the
excluded. After acquittal, I filed a counter suit against the officer who made such illegal search or place described in the search warrant.
arrest. I sued him for a criminal case on illegal search.  If a judge issues a search warrant but there is no probable cause, it is invalid.
 Does not require moral certainty but only probability
Question: can I utilize that shabu as my evidence against the police officer?
YES, because this time the evidence is not offered against me but against such person who made the What would happen if a search warrant is issued authorizing the confiscation of not just one but
illegal search or arrest. several items and there is probable cause in respect to some items but there is none in respect to
others?
Remedies against a person making unlawful arrest/search
Should it be voided in its entirety?
a.) Public Officer NO.
 file a counter suit for Arbitrary Detention under Article 194 of the RPC

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II: PRE-FINALS TRANSCRIPT Page 7

People vs Salanguit (2) Such probable cause must be must be determined by the judge
Search warrant was issued for shabu and drug paraphernalia, yet there is no probable cause in so far as
search for drug paraphernalia is concerned. SC said that a search warrant is severable, the entire May a search warrant be issued by an administrative agency?
warrant is not voided just because some provisions therein are invalid or that some items therein are Answer: NO.
ordered to be confiscated without probable cause.
Bottom line: disregard the invalid portion of the search warrant. Salazar v. Achacoso
 The invalidity of some portions will not invalidate the whole search warrant Secretary of Labor issued a search warrant against the person who is suspected to be carrying out an
illegal recruitment. According to the SC, Sec 27 of the Labor Code is unconstitutional, because the rule
Sec. 4, Rule 126, ROC as it is now is that only a judge of a court of law has the power to issue a search warrant.
 search warrant must only be issued for one specific offense, such that if a search warrant is  while a warrant of arrest may be issued by admin bodies if only to carry out a final finding of
issued for two or more offenses, it is invalid or a Scatter-shot warrant. a violation of the law, a search warrant should only be issued by a judge of a court of law.

Stonehill v. Diokno Where to file an application for a search warrant?

SC declared as invalid the search warrant that was issued for different offenses like violation of Central IT SHOULD BE FILED DIRECTLY TO THE COURT. APPLY TO ANY COURT AS LONG AS IT BELONGS TO THE
Bank circular, violation of tariff and customs code, violation of the internal revenue code and violation HIERARCHY OF COURTS.
of the RPC. It would not matter if the offenses therein are true and subject to probable cause, because
the requirement is clear that such should only be issued for one specific offense. The entire warrant is Sec 2, Rule 126, ROC
then voided, because the requirement under sec 4, Rule 126, ROC is violated. General Rule: application for a search warrant must be filed in any court within whose territorial
jurisdiction the crime is committed.
Asian Surety Insurance Company Inc. v. Herrera
SC declared invalid the search warrant issued for estafa, falsification, tax evasion, and insurance fraud. Take note: MTC or RTC of Cebu City may only take cognizance of cases or criminal cases within their
It was issued in violation of the requirement that the search warrant must only be issued for one respective territorial jurisdiction. In like manner that Lapu-Lapu courts may only take cognizance of
specific offense. cases within their territorial jurisdiction. In other words, the Lapu-Lapu courts cannot take cognizance
of criminal cases which happened in Cebu City, because in criminal cases venue is jurisdictional, unlike
In Salanguit Case in civil cases. Such that as a rule, when a crime happens in Cebu City the application of search warrant
Lawyer argued that even assuming that the entire warrant is not voided in so far as the drug in connection therewith should only be filed within the Cebu City courts and vice versa.
paraphernalia is concerned, the search warrant was issued in violation of sec 4, Rule 126, ROC to the
end that a search warrant must only be issued to one specific offense. His argument was that there is Exception: for compelling reasons, the application for a search warrant may be filed in any court
such crime of illegal possession of shabu which is a crime distinct and separate from illegal possession within the judicial region where the offense is committed or where the search warrant is to be
of drug paraphernalia. enforced. Sec 2, Rule 126, ROC
 Reason: to prevent leakage of information (to the person sought to be searched) that a
SC disagreed. While it is true that the crime of illegal possession of shabu is defined as a crime under a search warrant has been filed
separate provision of RA 6425 in like manner that illegal possession of drug paraphernalia under a
separate section thereof, the fact remains that these crimes are closely related. In fact they belong to Take note: Philippines is divided into different Judicial Regions not necessarily on the basis of
the same species of offense such that they are penalized under the same law and that was RA 6425. geographical location. By way of exception, when there is compelling reason, the application for a
 applies only to situation where separate crimes are defined under one special penal law. search warrant may be filed in any court within the territorial region or judicial region where the
 if there is a search warrant authorizing the confiscation of unlicensed firearm and that also offense is committed.
authorizes the confiscation of ammunitions then the search warrant is perfectly valid, for
they are penalized under the same special law. Illustration:
 But when the crime is issued for murder and at the same time it also covers homicide, then As a rule, an application for a search warrant that is committed in Cebu City must be filed only in Cebu
this is violative of sec 4, Rule 126, ROC. City courts but by way of exception, the same may be filed in Lapu-Lapu City courts or in the court of

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II: PRE-FINALS TRANSCRIPT Page 8

Bogo City because they all belong to the 7th Judicial Region, but that can only be done for compelling Alvarez v. CFI
reasons. SC succinctly ruled that an applicant for the issuance of a search warrant should only testify on
Example: matters which are within his personal knowledge. In other words, hearsay information will not suffice.
the subject matter of the raid is drug manufacturing, such that to avoid a tip off then any such
application for search warrant may be filed in a far flung court if only to avoid leakage in information. Burgos v. Chief of Staff
SC declared as invalid the search warrant that was issued on the basis of what was termed as the
Take note: when a case is filed in court and is pending, the application for such search warrant must evidence gathered by the military unit. The applicant was the military commander, but he was not the
only be filed in the court where the case is pending. one who gathered the evidence. It was rather his subordinate who supposedly gathered the evidence,
 This is in observance of the rule on primacy of jurisdiction, after all, a particular court has yet it was him who applied for the search warrant. His testimony with respect to the existence of the
already taken cognizance of a particular case. evidence is considered hearsay.

Circular No. 03-8-02, February 15, 2004 (4) There should be particularity in the description of the place to be searched and the object
It authorizes the executive judges or in their absence, vice-executive judges, of RTC in Manila and or things to be seized
Quezon City to issue search warrants upon applications to the PNP, NBI, and the same may be
enforced in any place in the Philippines, even if the same is to be enforced outside their respective People v. CA
territorial jurisdiction. Code: raid of Apartment no. 1 where the address stated in the search warrant is Abegail store.
SC said that it was invalid, because there was no meeting of the minds between the applicant and the
(3) Such probable cause must be determined after examination under oath of the complainant issuing judge. What the applicants had in mind was Apartment no. 1 but the address stated in the
and the witnesses search warrant was rather Abegail store and the judge issued the search warrant authorizing the
search on Abegail store. There was no particularity in the description of the place in that case, such
A requirement under Sec 2, Article 3 of the Constitution, that the search warrant was declared invalid by the SC.
 is buttressed by Sec 5, Rule 126, ROC, which provides and mandates that indeed judges
should examine the applicant and the witnesses in connection to the issuance of the search To avoid such problem: normally, the authorities in the application of a search warrant will present to
warrant. the judge the vicinity map or sketch map present the location of the premises sought to be searched.

In Soliven v. Makasiar In the case, it was argued by the prosecution that there was a sketch that was submitted, yet it was
Judge, in the issuance of a warrant of arrest, is not anymore mandated to conduct a personal found out that that sketch was rather submitted belatedly. In fact, that only came out when the
examination of the complainant. prosecution already filed a motion for reconsideration on the order of the judge quashing the search
 different in the issuance of a search warrant warrant. It was rather an attempt to cover up the mistake in the application of the search warrant.

Before issuing Search Warrants (4.a). There should be particularity in the description of the person subject matter thereof
 Judge must ask searching and probing questions, not merely answerable by yes or no.
 examine the applicant and his witnesses before issuing the search warrant and should be People vs Del Norte
conducted under oath Arrest was invalid because the person referred to in the search warrant was a certain Ising Diwa and
 if the applicant is not telling the truth, he can be prosecuted for perjury and such the person arrested was Priscilla del Norte. The police officers did not know the person referred to as
interrogation must be reduced in writing. While the warrant of arrest may be issued without Ising Diwa such that they had to employ the help of the barangay official who pointed to them this
the judge having to conduct and examination of the complainant, yet a search warrant can person who turned out to be Del Norte.
never be issued without the judge conducting personal examination of the applicant and his
witnesses. People vs Tiu Won Chua
Search warrant was issued against Timothy Tui, but the person arrested is Tii Won Chua. SC affirmed
Rule: Search warrant can never be issued without the judge personally examining the complainant the arrest as valid because the mistake subject matter was cured by the personal knowledge on the
and the witnesses

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II: PRE-FINALS TRANSCRIPT Page 9

part of the police officers who enforced the search warrant for they were the same officers who Microsoft and Salanguit Cases
conducted the surveillance leading to the issuance of the search warrant Only those items that are generally described are to be considered invalid, the remainder thereof will
continue to remain valid. Search warrant is severable. When there is a portion that is invalid, it will not
(4.b.) particularly describe the objects or things to be searched or to be confiscated render the entire warrant invalid. The remainder which is not affected thereby would have to be
enforced.
Rationale:
(1) to enable the officers enforcing the search warrant to identify the objects to be confiscated What are the things that may be ordered confiscated? Sec 3, Rule 126, ROC
thereby preventing unlawful seizure of things  Items which are the subject matter of the offense
(2) to deny them any discretion as to what things to be confiscated.  anything that may be used in the commission of the offense or is intended to be used in the
 A General Warrant is one which does not particularly describe the things or objects subject commission of the offense
matter thereof is invalid  subjects of the offense (stolen or embezzled goods, as well as the instrument of the
commission of the offense)
Scatter shot warrant is issued for more than one specific offense, while a general warrant may be
issued for one specific offense yet it does not particularly describe the things or objects subject matter How will the search warrant be enforced?
thereof. It has to be sent to the law enforcement agencies for their enforcement. It has to be enforced,
normally, by the applicants for the issuance thereof.
Stonehill v. Diokno
SC also nullified the warrant for being a general warrant, because in this case the search warrant was Sec 7, Rule 126, ROC
issued for the confiscation of financial records, vouchers, journals, correspondents, receipts, letters, Officers enforcing the search warrant may likewise employ reasonable force. They are allowed to break
portfolios, typewriters and other documents evidencing all business transactions. The warrant is open a window or a door if only to gain entrance of the premises or to break out therefrom.
defective, because it authorized the confiscation of all documents pertaining to all business
transactions without distinctions as to legitimate or illegitimate transactions. Sec 8, Rule 126, ROC
If a search is to be conducted in a house or a room thereof or any other premises, the lawful occupant
Burgos v. Chief of Staff must be present in each and every face of the search or in his absence, a member of his family, or in
Search warrant was also declared as invalid for being a general warrant, because it authorized the the absence of the latter then such searched must be witnessed by two (2) persons of sufficient age
confiscation of subversive materials without specifying what materials are to be considered as and discretion and who must be residents of the same locality. The occupant of the house must be
subversive. present at every stage of the search, or else it would invalidate such search.

Alvarez v. CFI Reason: to avoid planting of evidence

SC however said that when the object or things are incapable of being technically described then a
general description would suffice. In this case, the search warrant was for the seizure of books, Sec 9, Rule 126, ROC
documents, receipts and lists, however there was a qualifying clause list used by Alvarez in connection Search warrant is generally enforced during day time, except wherein the search warrant the judge
with his usurious money lending transaction which is conducted in violation of the law. Unlike in the directs or allows that the same may be enforced during night time.
case of Diokno which authorizes the confiscation of all documents evidencing all and any kind of
business transactions, even if the same is a legitimate business. Sec 10, Rule 126, ROC
Search warrant is valid only for 10 days reckoned from the date of the issuance thereof, as appearing in
Scenario: the search warrant itself. Thereafter, the search warrant ceases to be valid.
Assume that the judge issues a search warrant and the search warrant authorized the confiscation of
several items listed in paragraph A and B and the items enumerated under paragraph A are generally Sec 21, RA 9165
described although the same may be physically described, but the items in paragraph B are particularly Taking, marking, inventory of the items seized at the scene of the crime (e.g. shabu), must be done in
described. Should the entire warrant be voided? NO. the presence of the following:
1.) accused/lawful occupants/lawyer

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II: PRE-FINALS TRANSCRIPT Page 10

 2.) elected barangay official Disturbing Ruling in Lopez v. Collector of Customs
3.) representative of DOJ or the media There was a warrantless search conducted in a hotel room occupied by Lopez. At the time of the
warrantless search, Lopez was not around and the person present was the manicurist. The law
General Rule: for a search to be valid it has to be covered by a search warrant enforcers sought the permission of the manicurist for them to be allowed entry into the room and for
them to conduct a search there on. In the ensuing criminal prosecution, Lopez objected to the validity
Exceptions (Valid Warrantless Search) of the search, yet in this case our SC said that it was enough that a consent was given for the law
(1) Consented search: Person concerned has nonetheless given his consent to be searched upon officers to conduct such warrantless search.
without a search warrant.  SUPERSEDED BY DAMASO CASE. For such consent to be valid, such consent should be given
 for such consent to be valid it should be given unequivocally, expressly, voluntarily and by the holder of that right. If the officers insisted then such is may be invalid for it will not be
intelligently. covered by the exceptional circumstance.

People vs Caballes 2. Stop and Frisk Situation

It was argued by the prosecution that Caballes has given his consent because he did not interpose any Police officer is allowed to stop a person on the street, interrogate and search him for concealed
objection but rather kept silent. SC said that mere silence or passivity is not enough. Consent, in the weapons if the police officer observes that the other person is rather acting suspiciously, such that
concept of a warrantless search, has to be given freely, intelligently, and for more important expressly. there is probable cause on his part to believe that criminality is afoot.
 Adopted from the US Case: Terry vs Ohio
Espano Case
Espano did not consent to the search in his house. He merely answered to the police’s question. Take note:
Based on jurisprudence, stop and frisk is only applied to a situation where the one conducting the
People vs Canton search is a police officer and it is important to consider that for this situation to be allowed, the person
In the plane ticket, there is a stipulation pursuant to RA 6235 whereby the airline passenger is deemed to be searched must be acting suspiciously.
to have given his or her consent to being searched upon at the terminal otherwise he or she may be  Before conducting such warrantless search, the police officer is mandated to introduce
refused embarkation into the aircraft. Consent will validate and in otherwise invalid search or even if himself first as a person in authority and ask questions and if he is not satisfied with the
the search is conducted without a warrant if the person concerned has given his consent thereto then answers then that is the time that he may conduct a warrantless search.
it becomes valid already.
Purpose:
Take note: for such consent to a warrantless search to be valid, such consent must only be given by (1) for the safety of the police officer, because we do not know if the person is armed and he may use
the person who is the holder of such right. The waiver of right against unreasonable search or giving that against the police officer
consent to an otherwise warrantless search may only be given by the holder of the particular right. (2) to prevent the commission of the offense, to prevent criminality.

Damaso Case People vs Solayao

The elements of the defunct Philippine Constabulary conducted a warrantless search on the house of Solayao was drunk and he was wearing a camouflage and when his companions were approached by
Damaso. At the time of the search, Damaso was not around, such that the PC sought the permission of the PC officer, some of his companions fled. SC said that the search conducted on Solayao was valid. It
the person there who turned out to be a mere house helper, so she gave her consent for the elements was rather a stop and frisk situation.
of the PC to conduct a search on the house of Damaso. After the search, it was found out that Damaso
had in his possession subversive materials. In the ensuing criminal prosecution the contention of People vs Posadas
Damaso claim that the search was illegal, but the prosecution countered that the consent was given by Code: the one who was bringing with him a buri bag. Police officers approached him and introduced
the helper of Damaso. SC sided with Damaso that according to SC that any such consent was invalid themselves and he attempted to flee. Such that the police officers thought that he was doing
because it was given by the person who was not the holder of the right. If at all it should have been something illegal. SC declared the search to be valid even if the same is done without a search warrant.
Damaso who should have given his consent to such warrantless search. It was rather akin to a stop and frisk situation.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II: PRE-FINALS TRANSCRIPT Page 11

Stop and Frisk not applied in Malacat and Mengote Cases Take note: in search incidental to a valid arrest, what normally precedes is the fact of the arrest and
what follows is the fact of the search or at the very least the search should be done simultaneous with
Malacat Case the arrest. It can never be conducted before the fact of the arrest.
Code: Muslim-looking guy whose eyes were rapidly moving. SC did not apply the stop and frisk  This is the distinction between a stop and frisk situation vis-a-vis a search incidental to a
doctrine. According to SC it is highly improbable for Police officer Yu to have observed the movement lawful arrest as was clarified in the case of Malacat.
of the eyes of Malacat, after all, the police officer was nowhere near Malacat and it was already about
night time. Bear in mind: it is imperative that the preceding arrest must be valid for the search to be considered
 Credibility of the police was doubted also as valid. Conversely, if the preceding arrest is invalid, the consequential search is likewise invalid.
The preceding arrest is valid if such is covered by a warrant of arrest or it may be a case of a
Mengote Case: permissible warrantless arrest.
He was holding his abdomen and was looking from side to side. SC said that there was nothing wrong
with that. More so in the case of Mengote, the SC did not advance the stop and frisk argument. People vs Figueroa
When the police officers went to his house to serve the warrant of arrest, they conducted a search on
ATTY. GALEON’S OBITER DICTUM: Figueroa that may fall in a search incidental to a valid arrest.
Had the prosecution advance the stop and frisk doctrine in the case of Mengote, probably the decision
would have been different. Espano Case
In Espano, he was arrested without a warrant pursuant to a buy bust operation. The arrest was valid
General Rule: what should precede is the fact of search before the fact of arrest. It cannot be reversed. such that the search conducted in this person which led to the discovery of 2 sachets of marijuana was
considered also as valid, because the preceding arrest even if the same was without a warrant was
Exception (Stop and Frisk) decreed to be valid.
 Fact of search precedes fact of arrest
Luz vs People (Remember this case)
3. Search incidental to a lawful arrest Luz was arrested for a traffic violation. It was argued by the State that the search was incidental to a
lawful arrest. SC said that the preceding arrest was valid but the consequential search should be
Rule: when a person is validly arrested, he may be searched upon for concealed weapons or for declared unlawful.
anything which may be used as proof of his commission of the offense. Reason: the officers involved went further with what is required of by the situation. There was no need
for body frisking for if a person is arrested for a traffic violation, what should only be done is to issue a
Purpose: to find out if he has concealed weapons which he may use against the person effecting the violation ticket and confiscate the license. Extensive search not needed.
arrest or to recover something that may be used as proof of his commission of the offense.
Montilla, Malmstedt, Tangliben Cases
Espano v. CA What should have been applied is the search on moving vehicles
Search incidental to a valid arrest is normally limited only to the body of the person arrested and the
immediate surrounding or vicinity within his immediate control. It should not be conducted at a place People vs Tiu Won Chua
which is well beyond the immediate control of the person arrested. In case of Espano, he was arrested Search on the car was invalid, not a search incidental to lawful arrest. The search should only be done
on the street, pursuant to a test buy operation, yet aside from the search conducted upon this person on the body of the person or the premises within his immediate control.
yielding to the recovery of 2 sachets of marijuana, a search was conducted in this house and ruling as
to the search conducted in his house was illegal it was not considered as a search incidental to the 4. Plain view doctrine
arrest at that time of his arrest, Espano had no control over his house. He was arrested on the streets
yet a search was conducted in his house. The incriminating evidence which is in the so called plain view of the police officer who has the right to
be in the position to have that view may be confiscated and admitted in evidence.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II: PRE-FINALS TRANSCRIPT Page 12

REQUISITES OF PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE: Would that be admissible? Would you abide the plain view doctrine?
A. there should be a valid intrusion: officer must be in the position to have the view Answer: YES. Plain view doctrine can be apllied because it was found in the course of looking for shabu.
B. there should be inadvertent discovery of that illegal thing or object: there should not be a Although there was an effort at slicing the container, the police officer in doing so did not expect what
conscious effort to particularly search for the illegal thing was really inside the package. Their purpose in opening that is to look for shabu.
C. the item must be readily illegal
D. plain view would authorize the outright confiscation of the item People v. Musa
Musa was arrested pursuant to a test buy operation but such was conducted inside his living room and
People vs Figueroa after the test buy Musa was placed under arrest. The police officer tried to locate the mark money, but
When he was arrested, they noticed inadvertently that there were packs of marijuana placed on top of such was not found. In the search for looking for the mark money, the police officer conducted a
the table. The same was confiscated and the SC said that it was valid, because those items fell within search particularly in the entire house of Musa, including the kitchen, and in the course thereof, one
the plain view of the arresting officers. police officer noticed that there was a package and when it was opened, it contained marijuana. SC
decreed that the marijuana was inadmissible in evidence. They did not apply the plain view doctrine
SITUATION: because it was not apparent what was inside the package. There was an active search that was
Intrusion may be valid even without a warrant. Let’s say a police officer is pursuing a snatcher. The conducted. More so, the search was conducted after the arrest of Musa. Search incidental to an
snatcher went inside the house. The police officer followed only to arrest this person, then once inside, arrest cannot also be applied because the kitchen at that time was beyond the ambit of control of
the police officer observed that there are marijuana placed on the table. Musa, because he was arrested right in his living room.

Can the police officer confiscate the marijuana? But he went inside the house without a warrant? Is 5. Customs Search conducted on vessels like ocean going vessels and aircrafts
the intrusion valid?
Reason: such are equipped with powerful engines which could facilitate their escape. They can easily
Answer: YES. In other words, when we speak of valid intrusion, it does not matter if such intrusion is elude arrest or pursuit. In this situation, the procurement of a search warrant would be futile. There is
with or without a warrant. What matters most is that the same is valid. urgency in the situation. The search conducted on pump boats for the enforcement of fisheries laws
would also be considered as valid.
People vs Salanguit
The search warrant was for shabu and drug paraphernalia and in the course of the enforcement of the Different from Aminnudin Case:
search warrant the police officers discovered marijuana. According to the SC, the marijuana was He was not searched while he was still in the vessel, he was already disembarking.
inadmissible, because it was not shown in the case as to when marijuana was discovered. SC was of the
view that it was discovered after the discovery of the shabu, after all, in the application of the search 6. Search conducted at checkpoints
warrant, the witness testified that he knew for a fact as to where shabu was placed (inside the  The search must be done on a particular place, not a roving checkpoint
cabinet). SC believed that marijuana was only confiscated after the discovery of the shabu. SC did not
apply the plain view doctrine because it would appear that there was a conscious effort to further People vs Libnao
search when the rule is that when a valid portion of a warrant had already been executed, no further There was a checkpoint and it was decreed as valid.
search shall thereafter be allowed. More so the marijuana was not readily apparent for it was wrapped
in a newspaper; it would have been different if such was wrapped in a transparent container. People vs Caballes
The case was decreed invalid because in the first place, the police officers were not conducting a
SITUATION: checkpoint. They were merely on a roving patrol. They chanced upon the jeepney of Caballes, flagged
What if the marijuana which was wrapped in newsprint was discovered in the course of looking for it down and conducted a warrantless search. It was decreed as illegal.
shabu?  mere mobility of vehicle will not authorize the police officers to conduct indiscriminate
Assume that marijuana which was wrapped in newsprint was placed in the cabinet where the shabu search
was located and only to find out what was inside the package the police officer had to cut it open.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II: PRE-FINALS TRANSCRIPT Page 13

Valmonte v. De Villa Montilla and Maspil could be well justified to be falling under this exceptional circumstance because
SC ordained that a check point is valid for as long as it is impelled in the existence of public order and were held. There were already advance information which would make up a probable cause to believe
for as long as it is conducted in a manner that is least intrusive to motorist. that the one riding on the vehicle was a criminal offender.

For a checkpoint to be valid: 7. Inspection conducted on buildings for the enforcement of fire, sanitary and building
 must be impelled with probable cause, dictated upon existence of public order regulations
 should be conducted at a definite place
 should be manned by uniformed personnel 8. Search conducted in exigent or emergency situations
 there should be a proper signage
 there should be a patrol car that is properly marked Assume for example that there is a nationwide coup d’ etat or in Manila and the courts are not
functioning or during abnormal times.
General Rule: search that is permissible in check points is nothing but a peripheral or visual search.
What may be allowed is the flashing of flashlights without necessarily requesting the motorist to Can the government force conduct searches in the course of hunting down offenders, without a
disembark in the vehicle. They are not allowed to direct to open or close the spectacles. They are not warrant?
allowed to conduct body frisking. What they could do is look through the window, have it opened, but
are not allowed to get inside the vehicle. If the vehicle is parked and there is a curtain, they are allowed Answer: YES because in the first place there is no court that is open
to open the curtain but not go inside the vehicle such was permitted in one case.
People vs Degracia
Body frisking is no longer a peripheral search. However, there are also instances where a thorough At the height of the coup d’ etat during the time of Aquino, the government forces conducted a raid or
search may be conducted. At check point a thorough search may be conducted if there is already a search without a warrant on an office. In the course of such, it was found out that there were
probable cause on the part of the officers to believe that the motorist is a criminal offender; would unlicensed firearms and ammunitions stored in the place. SC said that the warrantless search
take in the form of a tip off or advance information. conducted was valid because it was done under exigent and emergency situation.

General Rule: only routine search on checkpoints Normally, when searches are conducted and things are recovered thereby, these things will be
presented as evidence to the crime committed.
Exception: extensive search may be done if impelled with probable cause (usually on the basis of a tip-
off) What would happen if the search is illegal? May the items illegally obtained be admissible in
evidence?
SITUATION:
Assume that there is a nearby shot out in the vicinity of San Carlos, a riding in tandem, and then it was Answer: Under Sec 2 Article 3, any evidence illegally obtained is inadmissible for any purpose and for
relayed through a radio that the malefactors were riding on a pink motorbike and they are wearing any proceedings. For this exclusionary rule to apply, you have to invoke this particular provision. In
black jackets with the logo of Spongbob and Patrick. So there is a checkpoint then there is this other words, there is a need for the accused to interpose the objection the moment the incriminating
motorcycle resembling the one that was reported. On the situation, do you think that police officers evidence is already being formally offered in court.
are not allowed to conduct a thorough search? NO, because there is already probable cause to believe  Failure to interpose an objection to the formal offer of exhibits will render the items illegally
that the motorist is a criminal offender. obtained as admissible in court. The exclusionary rule will not automatically be applied. It
should be invoked.
People vs Padilla
Even if Padilla was searched, it would be valid, because there was already a tip off and a checkpoint. Three instances where illegally admitted evidence may be admitted in court:
(1) when there is failure in invoking right against unlawful search or arrest
People vs Libnao (2) when the same is issued not against the person from whom the same is taken but to the person
Advance information by the civilian informant, a checkpoint was conducted and Libnao was thoroughly who conducted the illegal arrest or search
searched wherein the bag was opened. SC said that it was perfectly valid. The cases of Malmstedt, (3) when the search is done without the active intervention of the state.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II: PRE-FINALS TRANSCRIPT Page 14

Remedies in the event that there is an illegal search
 file a case for violation of domicile under Article 128, RPC
 when the search is done pursuant to a warrant that is illegally procured, file a case under
Article 129, RPC, penalizing the procurement of a search warrant illegally
 file a Motion to Quash the Search Warrant
 file a Motion to Suppress the Evidence Illegally Obtained but under observing the Omnibus
Motion Rule, it is better to file an Omnibus Motion.

An omnibus motion is first to quash the search warrant and the second prayer is to suppress the
evidence illegally obtained.
 Before trial you may already file this motion to quash the search warrant and motion to
suppress the evidence illegally obtained.

Where would you file such omnibus motion?

 if no case has yet been filed in connection with the enforcement of the search warrant, file
the omnibus motion with the issuing court
 but if a case has already been filed in another court in connection with the raid that was
conducted, file such motion in the court where the case is already filed or pending

If the judge who issued the search warrant acted capriciously

 file a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65, ROC, alleging that the judge acted with grave
abuse of discretion or acted without authority.

Other remedy if the motion of quash the search warrant and suppress the evidence is not granted
and a trial ensued
 interpose objection the moment the inadmissible evidence is offered in court and not during
the time that the items are offered for marking purposes only

Take Note: in the case of Nuevas, even if you failed to question the illegality of your arrest, you are
not precluded from objecting to the admissibility of the evidence illegally obtained.

What happens to the illegal items confiscated by the Government?

Answer: they are not returned to the owner; disposed in accordance with proper procedure (or
destroyed)

If the items are not illegal per se: Held in custodia legis

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II: PRE-FINALS TRANSCRIPT Page 15