Arrests Searches and Seizures
Arrests Searches and Seizures
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
If the items are not illegal per se: Held in custodia legis