Searches and Seizures

Sec 2, Art III of the 1987 Constitution

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose
shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue, except
upon probable cause to be determined personally by a judge, after examination under
oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce,
particularly describing the place to be searched, or the persons or things to be
seized.”

Scope of the protection

a. The protection is available to all persons, including aliens, whether accused of

a crime or not. Artificial persons are also entitled to the guarantee, although they
may be required to open their books of accounts for examination by the State in the
exercise of police and taxing powers.

b. The right is personal; it may be invoked only by the person entitled to it. As such,
the right may be waived, either expressly or impliedly, but the waiver must be made
by the person whose right is invaded, not by one who is not duly authorized to effect
such waiver.

CASE: Stonehill v. Diokno, GR. No. L-19550

FACTS: Upon application of the officers of the government, Respondents-Judges — issued on

different dates a total of 42 search warrants against petitioners herein and/or the corporations of which
they were officers, directed to the any peace officer, to search the persons above-named and/or the
premises of their offices, warehouses and/or residences, and to seize and take possession of the
following personal property to wit: Books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence,
receipts, ledgers, journals, portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and other documents and/or papers
showing all business transactions including disbursements receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss
statements and Bobbins (cigarette wrappers) as "the subject of the offense; stolen or embezzled and
proceeds or fruits of the offense," or "used or intended to be used as the means of committing the
offense," which is described in the applications adverted to above as "violation of Central Bank Laws,
Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and the Revised Penal Code."

Alleging that the aforementioned search warrants are null and void, as contravening the Constitution
and the Rules of Court — because, inter alia: (1) they do not describe with particularity the documents,
books and things to be seized; (2) cash money, not mentioned in the warrants, were actually seized; (3)
the warrants were issued to fish evidence against the aforementioned petitioners in deportation cases
filed against them; (4) the searches and seizures were made in an illegal manner; and (5) the
documents, papers and cash money seized were not delivered to the courts that issued the warrants, to
be disposed of in accordance with law, the said petitioners filed with the Supreme Court this original
action for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and injunction, and prayed that, pending final disposition
of the present case, a writ of preliminary injunction be issued restraining Respondents-Prosecutors,
their agents and /or representatives from using the effects seized as aforementioned or any copies
thereof, in the deportation cases already adverted to, and that, in due course, thereafter, decision be
rendered quashing the contested search warrants and declaring the same null and void, and
commanding the respondents, their agents or representatives to return to petitioners herein, in
accordance with Section 3, Rule 67, of the Rules of Court, the documents, papers, things and cash
moneys seized or confiscated under the search warrants in question.

In their answer, respondents-prosecutors alleged, (1) that the contested search warrants are valid and
have been issued in accordance with law; (2) that the defects of said warrants, if any, were cured by
petitioners' consent; and (3) that, in any event, the effects seized are admissible in evidence against
herein petitioners, regardless of the alleged illegality of the aforementioned searches and seizures.

ISSUE: WON the search warrants issued are valid.

HELD: With regard the search issued in the corporation – valid; with regard the search in the houses –
void.

RATIO: As regards the first group(In the offices), we hold that petitioners herein have no cause of
action to assail the legality of the contested warrants and of the seizures made in pursuance thereof, for
the simple reason that said corporations have their respective personalities, separate and distinct from
the personality of herein petitioners, regardless of the amount of shares of stock or of the interest of
each of them in said corporations, and whatever the offices they hold therein may be.8 Indeed, it is well
settled that the legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired
thereby,9 and that the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be
availed of by third parties. 10 Consequently, petitioners herein may not validly object to the use in
evidence against them of the documents, papers and things seized from the offices and premises of the
corporations adverted to above, since the right to object to the admission of said papers in evidence
belongs exclusively to the corporations, to whom the seized effects belong, and may not be invoked by
the corporate officers in proceedings against them in their individual capacity.

Second in their houses: Indeed, the same were issued upon applications stating that the natural and
juridical person therein named had committed a "violation of Central Ban Laws, Tariff and Customs
Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code." In other words, no specific offense had been
alleged in said applications. The averments thereof with respect to the offense committed were abstract.
As a consequence, it was impossible for the judges who issued the warrants to have found the existence
of probable cause, for the same presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the party against
whom it is sought has performed particular acts, or committed specific omissions, violating a given
provision of our criminal laws. As a matter of fact, the applications involved in this case do not allege
any specific acts performed by herein petitioners. It would be the legal heresy, of the highest order, to
convict anybody of a "violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue
(Code) and Revised Penal Code," — as alleged in the aforementioned applications — without
reference to any determinate provision of said laws. the warrants authorized the search for and seizure
of records pertaining to all business transactions of petitioners herein, regardless of whether the
transactions were legal or illegal. The warrants sanctioned the seizure of all records of the petitioners
and the aforementioned corporations, whatever their nature, thus openly contravening the explicit
command of our Bill of Rights — that the things to be seized be particularly described — as well as
tending to defeat its major objective: the elimination of general warrants.

c. The right applies as a distraint directed only against the government and its
agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. The protection cannot extend to acts
committed by private individuals so as to bring them within the ambit of alleged
unlawful intrusion by the government.

CASE: People v. Marti G.R. No. 81561

The Bill of Rights embodied in the Constitution is not meant to be invoked against acts of private
individuals.
It’s a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law.
It could only be invoked against the State to whom the restraint is imposed.

Facts:
Andre Marti and his wife Shirley wanted to send packages to their friend in Switzerland and contracted
the services of Manila Packing and Export Forwarders.
When asked by the forwarder if they could examine and inspect the packages, Marti refused, assuring
that the packages simply contained books and cigars.
 However, the proprietor opened the boxes for final inspection as part of their SOP. Upon opening, they
suspected that the contents were illegal drugs.
The proprietor reported the incident to NBI which confirmed that the suspected content were
marijuana.
In the presence of the NBI agents, the boxes were opened and found dried marijuana leaves inside.
After Marti was traced by NBI, he was charged with violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act.
Marti assailed the admissibility of the drugs as evidence against him, which, according to him, is
obtained in violation of his constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure and privacy of
communication.
Issue:
May an act of a private individual, allegedly in violation of appellant's constitutional rights, be invoked
against the State? NO.
Ruling:
The Court ruled that in the absence of governmental interference, the liberties granted by the
Constitution cannot be invoked against the State. The constitutional right against unreasonable search and
seizure refers to the immunity of one's person, whether citizen or alien, from interference by government. Its
protection is directed only to governmental action.
This right do not require exclusion of evidence obtained through a search by a private citizen.
In this case, the evidence was primarily discovered and obtained by a private person, acting in a private
capacity and without the intervention of State authorities. Therefore, there is no reason why it should not be
admitted to prosecute him.
Marti, however, alleged that the NBI agents made an illegal search and seizure of the evidence.
The Court pointed out that: a) It was the proprietor who made a reasonable search of the packages in
compliance with SOP AND b) the mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert the reasonable search
effected into a warrantless search and seizure. Merely to observe and look at that which is in plain sight is
not a search.
Marti further argued that since the Constitution expressly declares as inadmissible any evidence
obtained in violation of the constitutional prohibition against illegal search and seizure, it matters not
whether the evidence was procured by police authorities or private individuals.
The Court answered that the Constitution, in laying down the principles of the government and
fundamental liberties of the people, does not govern relationships between individuals.

Additional notes:
When a private individual violates another person’s right to privacy, the evidence obtained therefrom is
admissible; however the violator could be held civilly liable under Article 32 of the Civil Code.

The Supreme Court said that the Bill of Rights does not protect citizens from
unreasonable searches and seizures by private individuals. (Waterous Drug
Corporation v. NLRC, G.R. No.113271)

What constitutes a valid a reasonable or unreasonable search and seizure in any

particular case is purely a judicial question, determinable from a consideration of the
circumstances involved.

But where the search and consequent seizure offish allegedly caught by the use of
explosives was made without a warrant, and a search warrant was obtained by the
officers only much later, it was held that there was a violation of this constitutional
guarantee. (Manlavi v. Gacott, 244 SCRA 50)

Objections to the warrant of arrest must be made before the accused enters his
plea. Failure to do so constitutes a waiver of his right against unlawful restraint
of liberty. Indeed, even assuming that their arrest was illegal, their act of entering a
plea during their arraignment constituted a waiver by the accused of their right to
question the validity of their arrest.
 The filing of charges and the issuance of the warrant of arrest against a
person invalidly detained will cure the defect of that detention, or at least
deny him the right to be released.