Consti2 Case Digests - Searches & Seizures

Consti2 Case Digests Searches & Seizures
No. Case Title (Format: Case Facts Issue/s Ruling

Report/ Person
Title from syllabus, G.R. Full Text Link Date Entered Last Modified Notes from class
Digest Assigned
No., Date)
Digest 104 Gov’t. of the USA vs. Nopre The petition at bar seeking to void and set aside the Orders issued by the Whether or not an extraditee in an `"On the basis of Extradition Law NO.
Purganan, GR No. Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 42. The first assailed Order extradition proceeding is entitled to
148571, Sep 24, 2002 set for hearing petitioner’s application for the issuance of a warrant for the notice and hearing before warrant of It is significant to note that Section 6 of PD 1069, our Extradition Law, uses the word “immediate” to qualify the arrest of the
arrest of Respondent Mark B. Jimenez. Pursuant to the existing RP-US arrest can be issued. accused. This qualification would be rendered nugatory by setting for hearing the issuance of the arrest warrant. Hearing
Extradition Treaty, the US Government requested the extradition of Mark entails sending notices to the opposing parties, receiving facts and arguments from them, and giving them time to prepare and
Jimenez. A hearing was held to determine whether a warrant of arrest present such facts and arguments. Arrest subsequent to a hearing can no longer be considered immediate. The law could not
should be issued. Afterwards, such warrant was issued but the trial court have intended the word as a mere superfluity but, on the whole, as a means of imparting a sense of urgency and swiftness in
allowed Jimenez to post bail for his provisional liberty. the determination of whether a warrant of arrest should be issued. By using the phrase if it appears, the law further conveys
that accuracy is not as important as speed at such early stage. The trial court is not expected to make an exhaustive
determination to ferret out the true and actual situation, immediately upon the filing of the petition. From the knowledge and the
material then available to it, the court is expected merely to get a good first impression -- a prima facie finding -- sufficient to
make a speedy initial determination as regards the arrest and detention of the accused.
On the basis of the Constitution NO.
Even Section 2 of Article III of our Constitution, which is invoked by Jimenez, does not require a notice or a hearing before the
issuance of a warrant of arrest. It provides: Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the
place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized." To determine probable cause for the issuance of arrest warrants,
the Constitution itself requires only the examination -- under oath or affirmation -- of complainants and the witnesses they may
produce. There is no requirement to notify and hear the accused before the issuance of warrants of arrest. In Ho v. People and
in all the cases cited therein, never was a judge required to go to the extent of conducting a hearing just for the purpose of
personally determining probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. All we required was that the "judge must have
sufficient supporting documents upon which to make his independent judgment, or at the very least, upon which to verify the
findings of the prosecutor as to the existence of probable cause."
In Webb v. De Leon, the Court categorically stated that a judge was not supposed to conduct a hearing before issuing a
warrant of arrest: Again, we stress that before issuing warrants of arrest, judges merely determine personally the probability,
not the certainty of guilt of an accused. In doing so, judges do not conduct a de novo hearing to determine the existence of
probable cause. They just personally review the initial determination of the prosecutor finding a probable cause to see if it is
supported by substantial evidence." Upon receipt of a petition for extradition and its supporting documents, the judge must
study them and make, as soon as possible, a prima facie finding whether (a) they are sufficient in form and substance, (b) they
show compliance with the Extradition Treaty and Law, and (c) the person sought is extraditable. At his discretion, the judge
may require the submission of further documentation or may personally examine the affiants and witnesses of the petitioner. If,
in spite of this study and examination, no prima facie finding is possible, the petition may be dismissed at the discretion of the
judge.
On the other hand, if the presence of a prima facie case is determined, then the magistrate must immediately issue a warrant
for the arrest of the extraditee, who is at the same time summoned to answer the petition and to appear at scheduled summary
hearings. Prior to the issuance of the warrant, the judge must not inform or notify the potential extraditee of the pendency of
the petition, lest the latter be given the opportunity to escape and frustrate the proceedings. In our opinion, the foregoing
procedure will "best serve the ends of justice" in extradition cases. " 3/9/2020 5/27/2020
Digest 105 Kho vs. Makalintal, 306 Gonzales · NBI Agent Salvador applied for the issuance of search warrants 1. Whether or not the search 1. NO. It is decisively clear that the application for the questioned search warrants was based on the personal
SCRA 70 (1999) against Banjamin V. Kho(petitioner), in his residence at BF Homes, warrants were issued without knowledge of the applicants and their witnesses.
Paranaque. On the same day, another NBI agent Arugay applied probable cause.
with the same court for the issuance of search warrants against the 2. Whether or not the search In the case of Central Bank v. Morfe (20 SCRA 507), the Court ruled that the question of whether or not a
said petitioner in his house at Moonwalk, Paranaque. warrants are general warrants, probable cause exists is one which must be determined in light of the conditions obtaining in given situations. In
• The search warrants were applied for after teams of NBI thus, prohibited by the Luna v. Plaza (26 SCRA 310), it held that the existence of a probable cause depends to a large extent upon the
agents had conducted a personal surveillance and investigation in Constitution. finding or opinion of the judge who conducted the required examination of the applicants and the witnesses.
the two houses referred to on the basis of confidential information
they received that the said places were being used as storage After a careful study, the Court discerns no basis for disturbing the findings and conclusions arrived at by Judge
centers for unlicensed firearms and chop-chop vehicles. NBI sought Makalintal after examining the applicants and witnesses. Respondent judge had the singular opportunity to
for the issuance of search warrants in anticipation of criminal cases assess their testimonies and to find out their personal knowledge of facts and circumstances enough to create a
to be instituted against petitioner Kho. probable cause. The Judge was the one who personally examined the applicants and witnesses and who asked
• On the same day, the Judge Makalintal conducted the searching questions vis-a-vis the applications for search warrants. He was thus able to observe and determine
necessary examination of the applicants and their witnesses, after whether subject applicants and their witnesses gave accurate accounts of the surveillance and investigation they
which he issued the search warrants. conducted at the premises to be searched. In the absence of any showing that respondent judge was recreant of
• Kho filed a motion to quash the search warrants but Judge his duties in connection with the personal examination he so conducted on the affiants before him, there is no
Makalintal dismissed their motion. basis for doubting the reliability and correctness of his findings and impressions.
2. NO. The Court believes, and so holds, that the said warrants comply with Constitutional and statutory
requirements. The law does not require that the things to be seized must be described in precise and minute
detail as to leave no room for doubt on the part of the searching authorities. Otherwise, it would be virtually
impossible for the applicants to obtain a warrant as they would not know exactly what kind of things they are
looking for. Since the element of time is very crucial in criminal cases, the effort and time spent in researching on
the details to be embodied in the warrant would render the purpose of the search nugatory.
In People v. Rubio (57 Phil 384), the Court held that, ... But where, by the nature of the goods to be seized, their
description must be rather general, it is not required that a technical description be given, for this would mean that
no warrant could issue.
It is indeed understandable that the agents of respondent Bureau have no way of knowing whether the guns they
intend to seize are a Smith and Wesson or a Beretta. The surveillance conducted could not give the NBI agents a
close view of the weapons being transported or brought to the premises to be searched. Thus, they could not be
expected to know the detailed particulars of the objects to be seized. Consequently, the list submitted in the
applications for subject search warrants should be adjudged in substantial compliance with the requirements of
law. 3/9/2020 3/9/2020
1
Digest 106 Uy vs. BIR, GR No. Canon Provisions allegedly violated: Whether the search warrant Yes. The SC upheld the validity of the subject Search Warrants authorizing the seizure of the unregistered https://www.chanrobles.
129651, Oct. 20, 2000 issued was valid. delivery receipts and unregistered purchase and sales invoices, but ordered BIR to return to petitioners all items com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2000/oct20
National Internal Revenue Code seized from the subject premises and belonging to petitioners, except the unregistered delivery receipts and 00/129651.php
unregistered purchase and sales invoices.
SEC. 238. Printing of Receipts or Sales or Commercial Invoices. -
All persons who are engaged in business shall secure from the Section 2, Article III of the Constitution guarantees the right of the people against unreasonable searches and
Bureau of Internal Revenue an authority to print receipts or sales or seizures:
commercial invoices before a printer can print the same.
Sec 253. General Provisions (Crimes, Other Offenses and The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
Forfeitures) searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or
SEC. 263. Unlawful Possession or Removal of Articles Subject to warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
Excise Tax without Payment of the Tax. examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Facts:
A search warrant must conform strictly to the requirements of the foregoing constitutional and statutory
On September 30, 1993, Rodrigo Abos, a former employee of provisions. These requirements, in outline form, are:
Unifish Packaging Corporation (UPC) reported to the Bureau of
Internal Revenue (BIR) that UPC and Uy Chin Ho alias Frank Uy, (1) the warrant must be issued upon probable cause;
manager of UPC, were engaged in activities constituting violations (2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any other person;
of the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC). On October 1, (3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant
1993, the BIR requested and successfully secured, before the RTC and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and
of Cebu, a search warrant. On the same day, a second warrant was (4) the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be
issued with contents almost identical to that of the first warrant but seized.
consisted of only one page. These warrants were issued for the
alleged violation by Uy of Section 253. A third warrant, however, The absence of any of these requisites will cause the downright nullification of the search warrants.
was issued on that same day for Uy’s alleged violation of Section
238 in relation to Section 263. On the strength of these warrants, In the present case, the SC sustained the validity of the search warrant and comprehensively discussed
agents of the BIR, accompanied by members of the PNP searched each and every defect alleged by petitioners.
the premises of the UPC on October 2, 1993. They seized the
items as listed on the said warrant. A return of said search was duly A search warrant must conform strictly to the requirements of the constitutional and statutory provisions.
made by Labaria with the RTC of Cebu. Uy and UPC filed a motion One of which is that, the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or
to quash the warrants before the RTC. Said motion was denied. A things to be seized. Although it noted inconsistencies in the description of the place to be searched as indicated
petition for certiorari filed before the Court of Appeals was likewise on said warrants, the Court ruled that the description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officers
dismissed as it is not the proper remedy. enforcing the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from
other places in the community. It was not established that the enforcing officers had any difficulty in locating the
premises of petitioner corporation, hence, inconsistency in identifying the city where the premises to be searched
is not a defect that would spell the warrant’s invalidation in this case.
The warrants were also inconsistent as to who should be searched—one warrant was directed only
against Uy while the other was against Uy and UPC. The Court, however, ruled that where the warrant was
issued not for search of the persons occupying the premises, but only a search of the premises occupied by them,
the search could not be declared unlawful or in violation of the constitutional rights of the owner or occupants of
the premises, because of the inconsistencies in stating their name. Furthermore, the Court said that where the
apparent intent in issuing another warrant was to supersede an earlier warrant, the latter should be deemed
revoked by the former.
Also the thing to be seized was not clearly defined by the judge as she used generic terms. As a rule, the
use of a generic term or a generic description in a warrant is acceptable only when a more specific description of
the things to be seized is unavailable. But where, however, by the nature of the goods to be seized, their
description must rather be general, it is not required that a technical description be given, as this would mean no
warrant could issue. As regards the terms “unregistered delivery receipts” and “unregistered purchase and sales
invoices”, the Solicitor General correctly argued that these documents need not be specified as it is not possible
to do so precisely because they are unregistered.
Lastly, general description of most of the documents listed in the warrants does not render the entire warrant
void—the search warrant is severable, and those items not particularly described may be cut off without
destroying the whole warrant. Hence, insofar as the warrants authorize the search and seizure of “unregistered
delivery receipts” and “unregistered purchase and sales invoices”, the warrants remain valid.
3/10/2020
Digest 107 People vs. Francisco, Moral Accused-appellant Annabelle Francisco and her live-in partner, Whether or not the search No. "x x x. In the instant case, there is no ambiguity at all in the warrant. The ambiguity lies outside the instrument, https://lawphil.
GR No. 129035, Apr were placed under surveillance after the police confirmed, through warrant of the police officers is arising from the absence of a meeting of the minds as to the place to be searched between the applicants for the net/judjuris/juri2002/aug2002/gr_129035_
22, 2002 a test-buy operation, that they were engaged in selling shabu or valid to conduct a search in warrant and the Judge issuing the same; and what was done was to substitute for the place that the Judge had 2002.html
methamphetamine hydrochloride. SPO2 Teneros and SPO4 accused-appellant’s residence. written down in the warrant, the premises that the executing officers had in their mind. This should not have been
Alberto San Juan of OADDI-WPDC, U.N. Avenue, Manila applied done. It [was] neither fair nor licit to allow police officers to search a place different from that stated in the warrant
for a search warrant before Branch 23 of the Regional Trial Court of on the claim that the place actually searched—although not that specified in the warrant—[was] exactly what they
Manila to authorize them to search the premises at 122 M. Hizon had in view when they applied for the warrant and had demarcated in their supporting evidence. What is material
St., Caloocan City which was subsequently issued by Judge in determining the validity of a search is the place stated in the warrant itself, not what the applicants had in their
Bayhon. thoughts, or had represented in the proofs they submitted to the court issuing the warrant.
The search was conducted and the police officers were able to The place to be searched, as set out in the warrant, cannot be amplified or modified by the officers’ own personal
seize 230 grams of methampetamine hydrochloride or shabu, knowledge of the premises, or the evidence they adduced in support of their application for the warrant. Such a
shabu paraphernalia, two cellular phones, car, money and bank change is proscribed by the Constitution which requires inter alia the search warrant to particularly describe the
books. Francisco was charged and found guilty by the RTC for place to be searched as well as the persons or things to be seized. It would concede to police officers the power
violating of Section 16, Article III, Republic Act No. 6425, otherwise of choosing the place to be searched, even if it not be delineated in the warrant. It would open wide the door to
known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. She then appealed to abuse of the search process, and grant to officers executing a search warrant that discretion which the
the SC contending that the search invalid because the actual Constitution has precisely removed from them. The particularization of the description of the place to be searched
search was conducted at No. 120 M. Hizon St., Caloocan City while may properly be done only by the Judge, and only in the warrant itself; it cannot be left to the discretion of the
the subject search warrant authorized the police authorities to police officers conducting the search."
search only No. 122 M. Hizon St., Caloocan City. A search warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering a raiding party to undertake a fishing expedition to seize
and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to a crime.
3/11/2020
2
Digest 108 People vs. Lim, GR No. Rodillas Wilson D. Lim, Danilo S. Sy, Jackilyn O. Santos and Antonio U. Sio 1) Whether or not the arrest of 1) No, what was conducted by the police operatives was a raid whereby the latter rounded up everybody they https://www.lawphil.
141699, Aug 7, 2002 were convicted for violation of Section 15, Article III of RA 6425 as the accused was a result of a found in the motel. The usual procedure in a buy-bust operation is for the police officers to arrest the pusher of net/judjuris/juri2002/aug2002/gr_141699_
amended by RA 7659, and sentencing all the accused to suffer the buy-bust operation. drugs at the very moment he hands over the dangerous drug to the poseur-buyer. That is the very reason why 2002.html
supreme penalty of death. 2) Whether or not the arrests of such a police operation is called a `buy-bust’ operation. The police poseur-buyer `buys’ dangerous drugs from the
the appellants were lawful and pusher and `busts’ (arrests) him the moment the pusher hands over the drug to the police officer, which, applied
On March 27, 1999, at 11:45 in the morning, PO2 Nening Villarosa valid. to the present case, brings to the forefront, the irregularity in the conduct of the alleged buy bust operation
acted as a “poseur buyer” in a buy-bust operation conducted at the between PO2 Villarosa and the appellants. Insofar as Supt. Lopez and the other arresting officers are concerned,
Apollo Hotel. However, the accused appellants maintain that what they did not see the actual buy-bust operation engaged by PO2 Villarosa. Thus, there is much to be desired in the
has happened was an illegal raid. manner the police authorities effected the arrest of the appellants. It generates in the mind a persistent nagging
uncertainty that a buy-bust operation actually took place.
The trial court rendered its decision. It gave full faith and credit to
the version of the prosecution. It found the testimony of poseur 2) No. The general rule as regards arrests, searches and seizures is that a warrant is needed in order to validly
buyer PO2 Villarosa to be direct, positive and credible. It concluded effect the same. The Constitutional prohibition against unreasonable arrests, searches and seizure refers to those
that what was conducted was a buy-bust operation where the effected without a validly issued warrant, subject to certain exceptions found in Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of
appellants were caught in flagrante delicto, hence, no need for a Court, which reads:
warrant of arrest. "Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful – A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest
a person:
Hence, herein automatic review. a) When, in his presence the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense;
b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
person to be arrested has committed it; and
c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped xxx." (emphasis ours)
Not one of the above exceptions attended the arrest of appellants. Hence, the raid conducted on the premises by
the police without any search warrant or warrant of arrest was illegal. Since the warrantless arrests were invalid,
the search conducted on the premises was not one which is incidental to a lawful warrantless arrest. Thus, the
search in the motel, without the benefit of a search warrant, was clearly illegal and the shabu allegedly seized
thereat are inadmissible in evidence against appellants.
3/10/2020
Digest 109 People vs. Tuan, GR Bechayda A search warrant for an undermined marijuana dried leaves was Whether or not the search A description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer serving the warrant can, with reasonable effort,
No. 176066, Aug. 11, issued against Tuan by a judge upon probable cause. When the warrant is invalid as it failed to ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the community. A designation or
2010 warrant was served, Tuan was not around but the team was describe with particularity the description that points out the place to be searched to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry unerringly leads
allowed to entry by Tuan’s father. The team started searching on place to be searched. the peace officers to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement of definiteness.[41] In the case at bar, the address
the first floor in the presence of two witnesses and they proceeded and description of the place to be searched in the Search Warrant was specific enough. There was only one
on the second floor wherein they saw a movable cabinet in Tuan’s house located at the stated address, which was accused-appellant's residence, consisting of a structure with two
room and below which they found a brick of marijuana and a floors and composed of several rooms.
firearm without serial number. Tuan was charged with illegal
possession of marijuana and illegal possession of firearms. Tuan
was convicted with the former but was acquitted in the latter. On his
appeal, Tuan questions the validity of the search warrant because it
failed to particularly describe the place to be searched because the
house was a two-storey building composed of several rooms. 3/11/2020 3/11/2020
3
Digest 110 Del Castillo vs. People, Alidio Allegedly, petitioner was selling shabu in his house so the police W/n the search warrant is valid. 1.)Yes. The requisites for the issuance of a search warrant are: (1) probable cause is present; (2) such probable
GR No. 185128, Jan. secured a search warrant. When they were to serve such warrant, W/n the packets of shabu are cause must be determined personally by the judge; (3) the judge must examine, in writing and under oath or
30, 2012 petitioner ran to a nipa hut in front of his house. The police admissible evidence against affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce; (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify
requested the presence of a barangay tanod to search the house petitioner. on the facts personally known to them; and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the
and the nipa hut. Nothing was found in the residence but in the nipa W/n the packets of shabu are things to be seized. According to petitioner, there was no probable cause. Probable cause for a search warrant is
hut, there were packets of shabu. In the trial court, petitioner was fruits of a valid warrantless defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that
charged and found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violation of search. an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought
Section 16, Article III of Republic Act (R.A.) 6425. On appeal, CA to be searched. A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a
affirmed. Hence, this petition. crime has been committed and that it was committed by the accused. Probable cause demands more than bare
suspicion; it requires less than evidence which would justify conviction.The judge, in determining probable cause,
is to consider the totality of the circumstances made known to him and not by a fixed and rigid formula, and must
employ a flexible, totality of the circumstances standard.The existence depends to a large degree upon the finding
or opinion of the judge conducting the examination. This Court, therefore, is in no position to disturb the factual
findings of the judge which led to the issuance of the search warrant. A magistrate's determination of probable
cause for the issuance of a search warrant is paid great deference by a reviewing court, as long as there was
substantial basis for that determination.Substantial basis means that the questions of the examining judge brought
out such facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense
has been committed, and the objects in connection with the offense sought to be seized are in the place sought to
be searched.A review of the records shows that in the present case, a substantial basis exists.
2.) No.It must be remembered that the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and
persons or things to be seized in order for it to be valid. A designation or description that points out the place to be
searched to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry unerringly leads the peace officers to it, satisfies the
constitutional requirement of definiteness.In the present case, Search Warrant No. 570-9-1197-24 specifically
designates or describes the residence of the petitioner as the place to be searched. Incidentally, the items were
seized by a barangay tanod in a nipa hut, 20 meters away from the residence of the petitioner. The confiscated
items, having been found in a place other than the one described in the search warrant, can be considered as
fruits of an invalid warrantless search, the presentation of which as an evidence is a violation of petitioner's
constitutional guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizure.
3.) No. The OSG argues that, assuming that the items seized were found in another place not designated in the
search warrant, the same items should still be admissible as evidence because the one who discovered them was
a barangay tanod who is a private individual, the constitutional guaranty against unreasonable searches and
seizure being applicable only against government authorities. The contention is devoid of merit. The police
officers, as well as the barangay tanods were acting as agents of a person in authority during the conduct of the
search. Thus, the search conducted was unreasonable and the confiscated items are inadmissible in evidence.
4.) In People v. Tira,this Court explained the concept of possession of regulated drugs, to wit:
This crime is mala prohibita, and, as such, criminal intent is not an essential element. However, the prosecution
must prove that the accused had the intent to possess (animus posidendi) the drugs. Possession, under the law,
includes not only actual possession, but also constructive possession. Actual possession exists when the drug is
in the immediate physical possession or control of the accused. On the other hand, constructive possession exists
when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the right to exercise dominion
and control over the place where it is found. Exclusive possession or control is not necessary. The accused
cannot avoid conviction if his right to exercise control and dominion over the place where the contraband is
located, is shared with another.
While it is not necessary that the property to be searched or seized should be owned by the person against whom
the search warrant is issued, there must be sufficient showing that the property is under appellant’s control or
possession. The CA, in its Decision, referred to the possession of regulated drugs by the petitioner as a
constructive one. Constructive possession exists when the drug is under the dominion and control of the accused
or when he has the right to exercise dominion and control over the place where it is found.The records are void of
any evidence to show that petitioner owns the nipahut in question nor was it established that he used the said
structure as a shop. The RTC, as well as the CA, merely presumed that petitioner used the said structure due to
the presence of electrical materials, the petitioner being an electrician by profession.
The prosecution must prove that the petitioner had knowledge of the existence and presence of the drugs in the
place under his control and dominion and the character of the drugs. With the prosecution's failure to prove that https://lawphil.
the nipa hut was under petitioner's control and dominion, there casts a reasonable doubt as to his guilt. net/judjuris/juri2012/jan2012/gr_185128_2
012.html 3/11/2020
4
Digest 111 Worldwide Web Corp. Ocfemia Police Chief Inspector Napoleon Villegas of the Regional 1) Whether or not the conformity 1) No. Section 5, Rule 110 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure: https://lawphil.
and Yu vs. People of Intelligence Special Operations Office (RISOO) of the Philippine of the public prosecutor is SEC. 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions. — All criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information net/judjuris/juri2014/jan2014/gr_161106_2
the Philippines, et. al., National Police filed applications for warrants before the RTC-QC necessary to give the aggrieved shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the prosecutor. 014.html
GRN 161106, Jan 13, Branch 78, to search the office premises of petitioners Worldwide party personality to question an
2014 Web Corporation (WWC) and Planet Internet Corporation (Planet order quashing search warrants The above provision states the general rule that the public prosecutor has direction and control of the prosecution
Internet) as illegal toll bypass operations were conducted. 2) Whether or not an order of "(a)ll criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information." However, a search warrant is obtained, not by
According to PLDT, toll bypass enables international calls to appearquashing a search warrant, which the filing of a complaint or an information, but by the filing of an application therefor.
as local calls and not overseas calls, thus effectively evading was issued independently prior to
payment to the PLDT of access, termination or bypass charges, the filing of a criminal action, Furthermore, as we held in Malaloan v. Court of Appeals, an application for a search warrant is a "special criminal
and accounting rates; payment to the government of taxes; and partakes of a final order that can process," rather than a criminal action:
compliance with NTC regulatory requirements. These acts be the proper subject of an
amounted to theft and violation of PD 401 (Penalizing the appeal. The basic flaw in this reasoning is in erroneously equating the application for and the obtention of a search
Unauthorized Installation of Water, Electrical or Telephone 3) Whether or not the assailed warrant with the institution and prosecution of a criminal action in a trial court. It would thus categorize what is only
Connections, the Use of Tampered Water or Electrical Meters and search warrants were issued a special criminal process, the power to issue which is inherent in all courts, as equivalent to a criminal action,
Other Acts), to the damage and prejudice of the PLDT. upon probable cause jurisdiction over which is reposed in specific courts of indicated competence. It ignores the fact that the requisites,
4) Whether or not the search procedure and purpose for the issuance of a search warrant are completely different from those for the institution
RTC granted the application and issued 3 search warrants. The warrants were general warrants of a criminal action.
warrants were implemented on the same day. Over a hundred and therefore the items seized Clearly then, an application for a search warrant is not a criminal action. Meanwhile, we have consistently
items were seized, including 15 central processing units (CPUs), 10 pursuant thereto are “fruits of the recognized the right of parties to question orders quashing those warrants. Accordingly, we sustain the CA’s ruling
monitors, numerous wires, cables, diskettes and files, and a laptop poisonous tree that the conformity of the public prosecutor is not necessary before an aggrieved party moves for reconsideration
computer. Planet Internet notes that even personal diskettes of its of an order granting a motion to quash search warrants.
employees were confiscated; and areas not devoted to the
transmission of international calls, such as the President’s Office
and the Information Desk, were searched. Voltage regulators, as 2) Yes. An application for a search warrant is a judicial process conducted either as an incident in a main criminal
well as reserve and broken computers, were also seized. case already filed in court or in anticipation of one yet to be filed. Whether the criminal case (of which the search
warrant is an incident) has already been filed before the trial court is significant for the purpose of determining the
Petitioners argue that: (1) the search warrants were general proper remedy from a grant or denial of a motion to quash a search warrant.
warrants; and (2) the objects seized pursuant thereto were "fruits of Where the search warrant is issued as an incident in a pending criminal case, as it was in Marcelo, the quashal of
the poisonous tree." a search warrant is merely interlocutory. There is still "something more to be done in the said criminal case, i.e.,
the determination of the guilt of the accused therein."
In contrast, where a search warrant is applied for and issued in anticipation of a criminal case yet to be filed, the
order quashing the warrant (and denial of a motion for reconsideration of the grant) ends the judicial process.
There is nothing more to be done thereafter.
Thus, the CA correctly ruled that Marcelo does not apply to this case. Here, the applications for search warrants
were instituted as principal proceedings and not as incidents to pending criminal actions. When the search
warrants issued were subsequently quashed by the RTC, there was nothing left to be done by the trial court.
Thus, the quashal of the search warrants were final orders, not interlocutory, and an appeal may be properly
taken therefrom.
3) Yes. A trial judge’s finding of probable cause may be set aside and the search warrant issued by him based on
his finding may be quashed if the person against whom the warrant is issued presents clear and convincing
evidence that when the police officers and witnesses testified, they committed a deliberate falsehood or reckless
disregard for the truth on matters that are essential or necessary to a showing of probable cause. In that case, the
finding of probable cause is a nullity, because the trial judge was intentionally misled by the witnesses.
On the other hand, innocent and negligent omissions or misrepresentation of witnesses will not cause the quashal
of a search warrant. In this case, the testimonies of Rivera and Gali that the test calls they conducted did not pass
through PLDT’s IGF are true. They neglected, however, to look into the possibility that the test calls may have
passed through other IGFs in the Philippines, which was exactly what happened. Nevertheless, the witnesses did
not commit a deliberate falsehood. Even Planet Internet stated that the conclusion that the test calls bypassed all
IGFs in the country was made "carelessly and haphazardly."
4) No. In Vallejo v. Court of Appeals ruled as follows: “The things to be seized must be described with
particularity. Technical precision of description is not required. It is only necessary that there be reasonable
particularity and certainty as to the identity of the property to be searched for and seized, so that the warrant shall
not be a mere roving commission. Indeed, the law does not require that the things to be seized must be described
in precise and minute detail as to leave no room for doubt on the part of the searching authorities. If this were the
rule, it would be virtually impossible for the applicants to obtain a warrant as they would not know exactly what
kind of things to look for. Any description of the place or thing to be searched that will enable the officer making
the search with reasonable certainty to locate such place or thing is sufficient.”
Furthermore, the Court also had occasion to rule that the particularity of the description of the place to be
searched and the things to be seized is required "wherever and whenever it is feasible." A search warrant need
not describe the items to be seized in precise and minute detail. The warrant is valid when it enables the police
officers to readily identify the properties to be seized and leaves them with no discretion regarding the articles to
be seized.
In this case, considering that items that looked like "innocuous goods" were being used to pursue an illegal
operation that amounts to theft, law enforcement officers would be hard put to secure a search warrant if they
were required to pinpoint items with one hundred percent precision.
In People v. Veloso, we pronounced that "[t]he police should not be hindered in the performance of their duties,
which are difficult enough of performance under the best of conditions, by superficial adherence to technicality or
far-fetched judicial interference."
A search warrant fulfills the requirement of particularity in the description of the things to be seized when the
things described are limited to those that bear a direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued.
To our mind, PLDT was able to establish the connection between the items to be searched as identified in the
warrants and the crime of theft of its telephone services and business. Prior to the application for the search
warrants, Rivera conducted ocular inspection of the premises of petitioners and was then able to confirm that they
had utilized various telecommunications equipment consisting of computers, lines, cables, antennas, modems, or
routers, multiplexers, PABX or switching equipment, a d support equipment such as software, diskettes, tapes,
manuals and other documentary records to support the illegal toll bypass operations."
In HPS Software and Communication Corp. v. PLDT, we upheld as milady worded description of items to be
seized by virtue of the search warrants, because these items had been sufficiently identified physically and shown
to bear a relation to the offenses charged.
WHEREFORE, the petitions are DENIED. The Court of Appeals decision dated 20 August 2003 and
Resolution dated 27 November 2003 in CA-G.R. CR No. 26190 are AFFIRMED.
3/11/2020
5
Digest 112 People of the Cajegas Police Supt. Jaycees Tolentino filed two (2) separate applications 1. Did the trial judge conduct a 1. The trial judge failed to conduct the probing and exhaustive inquiry as mandated by the http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/3856/
Philippines vs. for search warrants against Maderazo and three others, alleging probing and exhaustive inquiry to Constitution.
Maderazo, GRN that he has been informed by barangay officials, that the latter and find probable cause for the The interrogation conducted by the trial judge appeared to be merely routinary, considering that same
235348, Dec. 10, 2018 company were keeping an undetermined quantity of dangerous issuance of the search warrant? questions were thrown on both witnesses Roco and Lozano. None of the questions appeared to probe on the
drugs, drug paraphernalia, and firearms of unknown caliber and applicant's and his witnesses' personal knowledge of the offense respondent allegedly committed. The trial judge
ammunitions inside his residence. 2. Was there a probable cause in failed to propound questions as to how the applicants came to know of the existence of the items, where they
Executive Judge Leynes issued a search warrant for violation connection with the offense of found it, or what they have seen and observed inside the premises. There was no probing, exhaustive, and
of 9165 and 10591, after the preliminary investigation of two illegal possession of firearms? extensive questions.
barangay officials. Police officers recovered heat-sealed It can easily be gleaned from the investigation that the applicant's and his witnesses' knowledge of the
transparent plastic sachets which were suspected to be containing offense x. . . . x was not based on their personal knowledge but merely based on Maderazo's alleged admission.
shabu, various drug paraphernalia, a .38 caliber revolver, live The judge even failed to inquire as to how Roco and Lozano were able to elicit said admission from Maderazo.
ammunitions, mobile phones, computer laptop, cash, among The trial judge failed to make an independent assessment of the evidence adduced and the testimonies of the
others, from the premises. Maderazo and 3 others were charged witnesses in order to support a finding of probable cause x. . .x
with illegal possession of dangerous drugs and drug paraphernalia, It must be emphasized anew that the core requisite before a warrant shall validly issue is the existence of a
and illegal possession of firearm. probable cause, meaning "the existence of such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet
Maderazo filed the Motion to Quash, arguing that Search and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with
Warrant were issued without probable cause; thus, all items seized the offense are in the place to be searched."
by virtue of their enforcement were inadmissible in evidence. The And when the law speaks of facts, the reference is to facts, data or information personally known to the applicant
motion was denied as well as the move for reconsideration, thus and the witnesses he may present. Absent the element of personal knowledge by the applicant or his witnesses of
the filing of petition for certiorari in the appellate court which the facts upon which the issuance of a search warrant may be justified, the warrant is deemed not based on
granted said petition. Maderazo now raised that Leynes committed probable cause and is a nullity, its issuance being, in legal contemplation, arbitrary.
grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction While hearsay information or tips from confidential informants could very well serve as basis for the issuance of a
and asserted that there was no probable cause for the issuance of search warrant, the same is only true if such information or tip was followed-up personally by the recipient and
the search warrant and that Leynes did not personally examine validated.
Tolentino and his witnesses through searching questions and
answers. 2. The elements of the offense should be present, to wit: (1) the existence of the subject firearm; and
(2) the fact that the accused who owned or possessed it does not have the license or permit to possess
the same.
Neither the testimonies of the witnesses nor Tolentino's application for the issuance of the search warrants
mentioned that Maderazo had no license to possess a firearm. No certification from the appropriate government
agency was presented to show that Maderazo was not licensed to possess a firearm. Both the applicant Tolentino
and his witnesses did not have personal knowledge of Maderazo's lack of license to possess firearms and
ammunitions. They, likewise, failed to adduce the evidence required to prove the existence of probable cause that
Maderazo had no license to possess a firearm.
Considering that the search and seizure warrant in this case was procured in violation of the Constitution
and the Rules of Court, all the items seized in Maderazo's house, being fruits of the poisonous tree, are
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
3/10/2020
Digest 113 People vs. Abriol, GR Imperial Appellant Astellero was a former prisoner at Bagong Buhay Were the handguns and No. https://lawphil. 3/11/2020
No. 123137, Oct 17, Rehabilitation Center. After he has served time for grave threats, ammunition seized by the police net/judjuris/juri2001/oct2001/gr_123137_2
2001 Astellero was employed by the warden chief Navales as personal illegally obtained absent a search On their conviction for illegal possession of firearms, appellants contend that the handguns and ammunition 001.html
driver. Meanwhile, appellant Abriol, a former policeman previously warrant? allegedly taken from them by the police officers were illegally seized. They assert that the police had no warrant to
detailed as jailguard at the BBRC, who was himself a detention effect a search and seizure, such that these illegally seized firearms were inadmissible as evidence, and it was
prisoner along with appellant Dosdos, enjoyed special privileges at error for the trial court to admit them.
the BBRC as the warden’s errand boys or trustees.
There are eight (8) instances where a warrantless search and seizure is valid. They are:
In June 1993, appellants Abriol, Astellero and Dosdos, armed with (1) consented searches
handguns, killed Flores, a former police officer who had been (2) as an incident to a lawful arrest
dismissed for illegal drugs. Fleeing the crime scene aboard a “Jiffy,” (3) searches of vessels and aircraft for violation of immigration, customs, and drug laws
the three were intercepted by the police. Police found a revolver, (4) searches of moving vehicles
empty shells, and two other pistols and live rounds of magazine. (5) searches of automobiles at borders or constructive borders
Flores’ widow said her husband could have been “rubbed out” on (6) where the prohibited articles are in "plain view
the orders of warden chief Navales for failure to remit some P31, (7) searches of buildings and premises to enforce fire, sanitary, and building regulations; and
000 for pushing drugs. Appellants tested positive in a paraffin test, (8) "stop and frisk" operations
and their handguns in a chemistry test as well.
In this case, the warrantless search and seizure of the subject handguns and ammunition is valid for two reasons.
It was a search incidental to a lawful arrest. It was made after a fatal shooting, and pursuit of a fast-
moving vehicle seeking to elude pursuing police officers, and a more than reasonable belief on the part of
the police officers that the fleeing suspects aboard said vehicle had just engaged in criminal activity. The
urgent need of the police to take immediate action in the light of the foregoing exigencies clearly satisfies the
requirements for warrantless arrests under the Rules of Court.63 Moreover, when caught in flagrante delicto with
firearms and ammunition which they were not authorized to carry, appellants were actually violating P.D. No.
1866, another ground for valid arrest under the Rules.64
Digest 114 People vs. Jerry Ting Calleja Uy, a Taiwanese national, was arrested in a buy-bust operation 1. Is the warrantless search 1. Yes. Clearly, the search made by the police officers in the instant case was incidental to a lawful arrest. https://www.chanrobles.
Uy, 380 SCRA 100 where three plastic bags containing 1,500 grams of shabu were made by the police officers during Section 13, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure explicitly states that a person lawfully arrested com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2002/apr20
(2002) seized inside the car where he was arrested. He was charged for the buy-bust operation valid? may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the 02/144506_07.php
G.R. Nos. 144506-07. violating the Dangerous Drugs Act. Uy contended that he was commission of an offense without a search warrant. Undoubtedly, appellant was lawfully arrested, caught as he
April 11, 2002, framed-up and that the evidence seized in the warrantless arrest is 2. Whether the plastic bags was in flagrante delicto as a result of a buy-bust operation conducted by police officers.
THIRD DIVISION, inadmissible. containing shabu seized during
MELO, J. the buy-bust operation are 2. No, the evidence seized is admissible. The Constitution generally proscribes searches and seizures without
inadmissible. judicial warrant. Any evidence obtained without such warrant is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding
(Sections 2 and 3(2), Article III). The rule is not absolute, however. Searches and seizures may be made without
warrant and the evidence obtained therefrom may be admissible in the following instances: (1) the search was
incident to a lawful arrest; (2) the search is of a moving motor vehicle; (3) the search concerns violation of
customs laws; (4) the seizure of evidence in plain view; and (5) when the accused himself waives his right against
unreasonable searches and seizures (People vs. Doria, 301 SCRA 668 [1999]).
A buy-bust operation is vastly different from an ordinary arrest. In lawful arrests in the course of a buy-bust
operation, it becomes both the duty and the right of the apprehending officers to conduct a warrantless search not
only on the person of the accused but also in the permissible area within his reach, i.e., that point which is within
the effective control of the person arrested, or that which may furnish him the means of committing violence or of
escaping (People vs. Cueno, 298 SCRA 621 [1998]). In other words, a warrantless search incidental to a lawful
arrest may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his
immediate control. In this case, the three plastic bags containing a total of 1,500 grams of shabu were seized
inside the car where appellant himself was arrested.
SC ruled that Uy was guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale and illegal possession of shabu. 3/19/2020
6
Digest 115 People vs. Estella, 395 Ramirez Appellant Antonio Estella appeals the decision of the RTC which WON the search made by the NO. There is no convincing proof that he indeed surrendered the prohibited drug, whether voluntarily or otherwise.
SCRA 553 (2003) sentenced him of reclusion perpetua for illegal possession of Policemen was a valid search In the leading case Chimel v. California, the Supreme Court of the United States of America laid down this rule:
dangerous drugs. In his defense, accused Antonio Estella said that incident to a lawful
the policemen did not believe him when he pointed the location of When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order to remove
his house and insisted that accuseds house is the house where he any weapons that the latter might seek to use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape.xx There is no
was first seen by the Policemen. The Policemen searched the area comparable justification, however, for routinely searching any room other than that in which an arrest occurs or,
where the accused was located and went out with a bulk of plastic. for that matter, for searching through all the desk drawers or other closed or concealed areas in that room itself.
Accused denied having surrendered to policeman Buloron tin cans
containing marijuana and likewise having any firearm. The OSG Xxx
argues that [e]ven assuming that appellant was not the occupant of
the hut, the fact remains that he voluntarily surrendered the The purpose of the exception is to protect the arresting officer from being harmed by the person being arrested,
marijuana to the police officers. After appellant had surrendered the who might be armed with a concealed weapon, and to prevent the latter from destroying evidence within reach.
prohibited stuff, the police had a right to arrest him even without a The exception, therefore, should not be strained beyond what is needed to serve its purpose.
warrant and to conduct a search of the immediate vicinity of the
arrestee for weapons and other unlawful objects as an incident to In the case before us, searched was the entire hut, which cannot be said to have been within appellants
the lawful arrest. immediate control. Thus, the search exceeded the bounds of that which may be considered to be incident to a
lawful arrest.
3/20/2020 5/27/2020
Digest 116 People vs. Salanguit, Bertillo SPO1 Edmund Badua, police poseur-buyer, purchased 2.12 grams 1. Whether or nor the search is 1.Yes. The search warrant is valid.
356 SCRA 683 (2001) of shabufrom accused-appellant Roberto Salanguit which sale took valid?2. Whether or not the Rule 126, §4 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure21 provides that a search warrant shall not issue except
place in accused-appellant’sroom.SPO1 Badua saw that the shabu Marijuana is inad,missible as upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after
was taken by the accused-appellant from acabinet inside his room. evidence pursuant ot the plain examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
After finding probable cause, Sr. Insp. Aguilar applied for asearch view doctrine? describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines.
warrant at the RTC, Branch 90, Dasmariñas, Cavite and such In issuing a search warrant, judges must comply strictly with the requirements of the Constitution and the Rules of
application wasgranted.At about 10:30 p.m. of December 26, 1995, Criminal Procedure. No presumption of regularity can be invoked in aid of the process when an officer undertakes
a group of about 10 policemen, alongwith one civilian informer went to justify its issuance. Nothing can justify the issuance of the search warrant unless all the legal requisites are
to the residence of accused-appellant at Binhagan St.,Novaliches, fulfilled.
Quezon City to serve the search warrant. They found heat- In this case all the requirement were satisfied. Hence, the search is valid.
sealedtransparent plastic bags containing a white crystalline
substance, a paper clip box alsocontaining a white crystalline 2. Yes. The seized marijuana is inadmissible as evidence.
substance, and two bricks of dried leaves which appearedto be Under the "plain view doctrine," unlawful objects within the "plain view" of an officer who has the right to be in the
marijuana. A receipt of the items seized was prepared, but the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented in evidence. For this doctrine to apply,
accused-appellantrefused to sign it. Charges were made against there must be: (a) prior justification; (b ) inadvertent discovery of the evidence; and (c) immediate apparent
the accused, hence, he contended that the evidenceagainst him illegality of the evidence before the police.The question is whether these requisites were complied with by the
was inadmissible because the warrant used in obtaining it was authorities in seizing the marijuana in this case.
invalid The police failed to allege in this case the time when the marijuana was found, i.e., whether prior to, or
contemporaneous with, the shabu subject of the warrant, or whether it was recovered on accused-appellant's
person or in an area within his immediate control. Its recovery, therefore, presumably during the search conducted
after the shabu had been recovered from the cabinet, as attested to by SPO1 Badua in his depostion, was invalid.
No presumption of regularity may be invoked by an officer in aid of the process when he undertakes to justify an
encroachment of rights secured by the Constitution.41 In this case, the marijuana allegedly found in the
possession of accused-appellant was in the form of two bricks wrapped in newsprint. Not being in a transparent
container, the contents wrapped in newsprint could not have been readily discernible as marijuana. Nor was there
mention of the time or manner these items were discovered. Accordingly, for failure of the prosecution to prove
that the seizure of the marijuana without a warrant was conducted in accordance with the "plain view doctrine," we
hold that the marijuana is inadmissible in evidence against accused-appellant. However, the confiscation of the
drug must be upheld.
5/30/2020 5/30/2020
Digest 117 People vs. Simbahon, Magdaong A search warrant was issued against Danilo Simbahon for allegedly Whether or not the lower court Yes. The warrant failed to describe the place to be searched with sufficient particularity. The rule is that a
410 SCRA 94 (2003) violating RA 6425. The prosecution encountered slight resistance, erred in ruling that the search description of a place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort,
however the team nevertheless gained entry into the house and, warrant was valid. ascertain and identify the place intended. The constitutional requirement is a description which particularly points
and surrounded the occupants. As the searching ensued, the to a definitely ascertainable place, so as to exclude all others. In the case at bar, only the application for search
police officers found under the bed a brick of dried marijuana and a warrant contained the address of the place to be searched. The search warrant issued by the court merely
pouch of ammunitions, a green plastic pencil case with shabu and referred to appellant's residence as "premises", without specifying its address. The Constitution and the Rules of
pieces of ammunition. After the search, an inventory receipt and an Court limit the place to be searched only to those described in the warrant.19 The absence of a particular
affidavit of orderly search was signed by Simbahon and the 3 description in the search warrant renders the same void.
suspects were arrested for further investigation. Certifications were
also issued by the Firearms and Explosive Unit to effect that the
accused parties were not licensed holders as holder of the
firearms/ammunitions.
Simbahon alleges that the police officers were not in uniform,
thus forcibly entered their house, and that the search and
investigation was not reduced into writing. He denied that the bag
containing the ammos found under the bed was not theirs and that
they have no bed to start with. He admitted that they were shown a
piece of paper but was nevertheless handed to him for his personal
scrutiny inspite of his repeated request. He added that the contents
of the alleged articles that was found in their abode was never
shown to them. He likewise stated that the only reason he was
charged by the police
It was found that the search warrant thereto presented involves
2 violations of different special penal laws and the place subject of
the search was not specified.
Despite the plea of Simbahon the court was convinced to find
him guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
5/23/2020 5/23/2020
7
Digest 118 People vs. Go, 411 , A raiding team went to appellant’s residence armed with a Search Whether or not the items The general rule is that only the personal properties particularly described in the search warrant may be seized by
SCRA 81 (2003) Warrant commanding them to "make an immediate search anytime enumerated in appellant’s Motion the authorities. Moreover, by their seizure of articles not described in the search warrant, the police acted beyond
of the day or night" of appellant’s residence and to seize and take for Return of Personal the parameters of their authority under the search warrant. Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution requires
possession of "METAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu), Documents, Vehicle and that a search warrant should particularly describe the things to be seized.
weighing scale, other drug paraphernalias and proceeds of the Paraphernalia, which items are There are, however, several well-recognized exceptions to the foregoing rule. Thus, evidence obtained through a
above crime." allegedly not among those warrantless search and seizure may be admissible under the following circumstances: (1) search incident to a
Upon entry, the team met appellant’s son, Jack Go who was the particularly described in the lawful arrest; (2) search of a moving motor vehicle; (3) search in violation of customs laws; (4) seizure of evidence
only one present at the time and restrained him. They called two Search Warrant, should be in plain view; and (5) when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
barangay officials to act as witnesses to the said search and then returned to him. Measured against the foregoing standards, it is readily apparent that the seizure of the passports, bankbooks,
proceeded searching and recovered "one knot tied transparent checks, typewriter, check writer, dry seals and stamp pads and other assorted documents does not fall within the
plastic bag containing white crystalline substance" "plain view" exception. The assertions of the police officers that said objects were "inadvertently" seized within
They also seized (a) "one plastic bag containing yellowish their "plain view" are mere legal conclusions which are not supported by any clear narration of the factual
substance" 18 found by SPO1 Serqueña; 19 (b) a weighing scale circumstances leading to their discovery.
discovered by SPO1 Fernandez; (c) assorted documents; (d) The circumstances attendant to the case at bar do not warrant the application of the "plain view" doctrine to justify
passports; (e) bank books; (f) checks; (g) a typewriter; (h) a check the seizure and retention of the questioned seized items. The things belonging to appellant not specifically
writer; (i) several dry seals and (j) stamp pads; 20 (k) Chinese and mentioned in the warrants, like those not particularly described, must thus be ordered returned to him.
Philippine currency; 21 (l) and appellant’s Toyota Corolla GLI 22
car (the car).
Appellant later on arrived and was made to sign the inventory
receipt. Go was then charged for violation of R.A. 6425. Upon
hearing, a witness claimed that the first page of the handwritten
Inventory Receipt submitted in evidence had been substituted with
another, asserting that he and the other witnesses affixed their
signatures on the left-hand margin of the first page of the
handwritten Inventory Receipt which they were asked to sign
whereas that submitted in court did not bear their signatures.
Go was convicted for the violation of the offense charged. On
appeal, Go assails the decision of the RTC and asks for the return
of the properties seized that were not included in the search
warrant.
3/11/2020 3/11/2020
Digest 119 Caballes vs. CA, 373 Infante "The jeepney driven by the Caballes was suspected to be loaded Whether or not the constitutional Yes, the constitutional right of Caballes was violated.
SCRA 221 (2002) with smuggled goods. Such jeepney was covered with kakawati right of Caballes was violated
leaves. With this presumption, two policemen flagged down the when the police officers searched One such form of search of moving vehicles is the "stop-and-search" without warrant at military or police
vehicle. When asked what was loaded on the jeep, Caballes did not his vehicle and seized the wires checkpoints which has been declared to be not illegal per se, for as long as it is warranted by the exigencies of
answer; he appeared pale and nervous. With Caballes’ alleged found therein without a search public order and conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists. A checkpoint may either be a mere routine
consent, the police officers checked the cargo and they discovered warrant? inspection or it may involve an extensive search.
bundles of aluminum/galvanized conductor wires exclusively owned
by National Power Corporation (NPC). In a decision, the RTC Routine inspections are not regarded as violative of an individual's right against unreasonable search. The search
convicted Caballes with the crime of theft." which is normally permissible in this instance is limited to the following instances: (1) where the officer merely
draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle which is parked on the public fair grounds; (2) simply looks into a
vehicle; (3) flashes a light therein without opening the car's doors; (4) where the occupants are not subjected to a
physical or body search; (5) where the inspection of the vehicles is limited to a visual search or visual inspection;
and (6) where the routine check is conducted in a fixed area.
None of the foregoing circumstances is obtaining in the case at bar. The police officers did not merely conduct a
visual search or visual inspection of herein petitioner's vehicle. They had to reach inside the vehicle, lift the
kakawati leaves and look inside the sacks before they were able to see the cable wires. It cannot be considered a
simple routine check.
On the other hand, when a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search, such a warrantless search
would be constitutionally permissible only if the officers conducting the search have reasonable or probable cause
to believe, before the search, that either the motorist is a law-offender or they will find the instrumentality or
evidence pertaining to a crime in the vehicle to be searched.
In this case, the fact that the vehicle looked suspicious simply because it is not common for such to be covered
with kakawati leaves does not constitute "probable cause" as would justify the conduct of a search without a
warrant. 3/10/2020 3/11/2020
8
Digest 120 People vs. Binad Sy Nopre A confidential informer has tipped SPO2 Nulud and PO2Nunag that Whether or not the arrest of No. The lower court believed that since the police received information that the accused will distribute illegal drugs
Chua, 396 SCRA 657 the accused Binad Sy Chua, who is allegedly a drug pusher, is accused-appellant was lawful and that evening at the Thunder Inn Hotel and its vicinities. The police officer had to act quickly and there was no
(2003) about to deliver drugs at the Thunder Inn Hotel in Balibago, consequently the search of his more time to secure a search warrant. The search is valid being akin to a “stop and frisk”.
Angeles City. Immediately, the PNP has formed a team of person and the subsequent
operatives to apprehend Chua. confiscation of shabu allegedly The trial court confused the concepts of a “stop-and-frisk” and of a search incidental to a lawful arrest. These two
found on him were conducted in types of warrantless searches differ in terms of the requisite quantum of proof before they may be validly effected
Thereafter, they have proceeded to the said hotel waiting for Chua a lawful and valid manner. and in their allowable scope.
to come. When Chua has alighted from his car carrying with him a
sealed Zest-O juice box, the policemen hurriedly apprehended him In a search incidental to a lawful arrest, as the precedent arrest determines the validity of the incidental search,
and introduced themselves as police officers. the legality of the arrest is questioned, e.g., whether an arrest was merely used as a pretext for conducting a
search. In this instance, the law requires that there first be arrest before a search can be made—the process
When the policemen noticed the sealed zest- o box, they have cannot be reversed. Accordingly, for this exception to apply, two elements must concur: (1) the person to be
conducted a body search and found in Chua’s possession a arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
crystalline substances and pieces of live .22 caliber firearm bullters. commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
Consequently, Chua has been brought to the PNP Headquarters in
Camp Pepito, AngelesCity. We find the two aforementioned elements lacking in the case at bar. Accused-appellant did not act in a suspicious
manner. For all intents and purposes, there was no overt manifestation that accused-appellant has just
Upon the examination conducted by the PNP, it has been found out committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime. “Reliable information” alone, absent any
that the crystalline substances are SHABU. overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and within the view of the arresting officers, is not
sufficient to constitute probable cause that would justify an in flagrante delicto arrest.
In his defense, Chua alleges that he has just stopped by in front of
the said hotel as he is actually on his way to Manila (he is following With regard to the concept of “stop-and frisk”: mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a “stop-and-frisk”. A
his wife and son to Manila). Thereafter, an unidentified man has genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officer’s experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the
approached him and inspected his car. Suddenly, the said man has belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him. Finally, a “stop-and-frisk” serves a two-fold
pulled out his gun and pointed it at him instructing him to raise his interest: (1) the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection for purposes of investigating possible
both hands. The man identified himself later as a policeman. There, criminal behavior even without probable cause; and (2) the interest of safety and self-preservation which permit
other policemen came and inspected his car. Soon later, Chua has the police officer to take steps to assure himself that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly
been arrested and sent to the PNP headquarters weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against the police officer.
RTC rendered a decision convicting Chua with the crime of illegal A stop-and-frisk was defined as the act of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him, and pat
possession of ammunitions and illegal possession of dangerous him for weapon(s) or contraband. It should also be emphasized that a search and seizure should precede the
drugs. arrest for this principle to apply. The foregoing circumstances do not obtain in the case at bar. To reiterate,
accused-appellant was first arrested before the search and seizure of the alleged illegal items found in his
possession. The apprehending police operative failed to make any initial inquiry into accused-appellant’s business
in the vicinity or the contents of the Zest-O juice box he was carrying. The apprehending police officers only
introduced themselves when they already had custody of accused-appellant.
In the case at bar, neither the in flagrante delicto nor the “stop and frisk” principles is applicable to justify the
warrantless arrest and consequent search and seizure made by the police operatives on accused-appellant.
Wherefore, accused-appellant Binad Sy Chua is hereby Acquitted. 3/9/2020 5/18/2020

Digest 121 People vs. Johnson, Gonzales The accused, Leila Johnson was allegedly found in possession of Whether or not Johnson’s NO. What is involved in this case is an arrest in flagrante delicto pursuant to a valid search made on her person.
GR No. 138881, Dec. 580.2 grams of “shabu” while being frisked at the Ninoy Aquino constitutional rights were violated The Court held that the constitutional right of the accused was not violated as she was never placed under
18, 2000 International Airport (NAIA). After which, the plastic packs of shabu when she was searched and custodial investigation but was validly arrested without warrant pursuant to the provisions of Section 5, Rule 113
were confiscated along with her passport, ticket and luggage. She arrested without a valid warrant. of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides:
was then arrested and was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
for violation of R.A. 6425 (Dangerous Drug Act) by the trial court. person:
However, Johnson claims that she was arrested and detained in (a) when in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
gross violation of her constitutional rights. She argues that the commit an offense;
shabu confiscated from her is inadmissible against her because (b) when an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the
she was forced to affix her signature on the plastic bags while she person to be arrested has committed it; and……
was detained at the 1st RASO office, without the assistance of The circumstances surrounding the arrest of the accused above falls in either paragraph (a) or (b) of the Rule
counsel and without having been informed of her constitutional above cited.
rights. Hence, she argues that the shabu should have been
excluded from the evidence." The shabu seized from her during the routine frisk at the airport was acquired legitimately pursuant to airport
security procedures.
Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by exposure of their persons or property to the
public in a manner reflecting a lack of subjective expectation of privacy, which expectation society is prepared to
recognize as reasonable. Such recognition is implicit in airport security procedures. With increased concern over
airplane hijacking and terrorism has come increased security at the nations airports. Passengers attempting to
board an aircraft routinely pass through metal detectors; their carry-on baggage as well as checked luggage are
routinely subjected to x-ray scans. Should these procedures suggest the presence of suspicious objects, physical
searches are conducted to determine what the objects are. There is little question that such searches are
reasonable, given their minimal intrusiveness, the gravity of the safety interests involved, and the reduced privacy
expectations associated with airline travel. Indeed, travelers are often notified through airport public address
systems, signs, and notices in their airline tickets that they are subject to search and, if any prohibited materials or
substances are found, such would be subject to seizure. These announcements place passengers on notice that
ordinary constitutional protections against warrantless searches and seizures do not apply to routine airport
procedures.
The packs of shabu having thus been obtained through a valid warrantless search are admissible in evidence
against Johnson. Corollarily, her subsequent arrest, although likewise without warrant, was justified since it was
effected upon the discovery and recovery of shabu in her person in flagrante delicto.
3/9/2020 3/11/2020
9
Digest 122 People vs. Canton, GR Canon "Canton was charged for violation of Dangerous Drugs Act of Wheter or not the warrantless No, warrantless search and subsequent seizure of the regulated drugs, as well as the arrest of Canton, were not
No. 148825, Dec. 27, 1972. She was caught in possession of metamphetamine search and seizure of regulated violative of her constitutional rights. What was done to Canton was a stop and frisk search.
2002 hydrochloride (shabu) without prescription or license. Canton was drugs, as well as the arrest of “stop and frisk” situation refers to a case where a police officer approaches a person who is acting
bound to Saigon, Vietnam. Prior to her flight, she passed through Canton were violative of her suspiciously, for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior in line with the general interest of
the metal detector and beeped. A civilian inspector of the airport constitutional rights. effective crime prevention and detection. The search was made pursuant to routine airport security procedure,
searched her and upon frisking, she felt something that is bulging in which is allowed under Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6235 which states that “ Holder hereof and his hand-carried
the abdomen of Canton. They were able to recover packets that luggage(s) are subject to search for , and seizure of, prohibited materials or substances xxx”.
were wrapped with packing tape." with "They also seized (a) "one
plastic bag containing yellowish substance" 18 found by SPO1 This is another exemption in warrantless arrest and seizure. After the metal detector alarmed Canton
Serqueña; 19 (b) a weighing scale discovered by SPO1 Fernandez; consented to be frisked, which resulted in the discovery of packages on her body. Persons may lose the
(c) assorted documents; (d) passports; (e) bank books; (f) checks; protection of the search and seizure clause by exposure of their persons or property to the public in a manner
(g) a typewriter; (h) a check writer; (i) several dry seals and (j) reflecting a lack of subjective expectation of privacy, which expectation society is prepared to recognize as
stamp pads; 20 (k) Chinese and Philippine currency; 21 (l) and reasonable.
appellant’s Toyota Corolla GLI 22 car (the car).
It is a well-settled rule that the interdiction against warrantless searches and seizures is not absolute. The
recognized exceptions established by jurisprudence are (1) search of moving vehicles; (2) seizure in plain view;
(3) customs searches; (4) waiver or consented searches; (5) stop and frisk situations ( Terry search); and (6)
search incidental to a lawful arrest.
The scope of a search pursuant to airport security procedure is not confined only to search for weapons under the
Terry search doctrine. The Terry search or the stop and frisk situation refers to a case where a police officer
approaches a person who is acting suspiciously, for purposes of investigating possibly criminal behavior in line
with the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection. To assure himself that the person with whom
he is dealing is not armed with a weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against him, he could validly
conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such person to discover weapons which might be used
to assault him. In the present case, the search was made pursuant to routine airport security procedure, which is
allowed under Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6235 reading as follows:
SEC. 9. Every ticket issued to a passenger by the airline or air carrier concerned shall contain among others the
following condition printed thereon:
Holder hereof and his hand-carried luggage(s) are subject to search for , and seizure of, prohibited materials or
substances. Holder refusing to be searched shall not be allowed to board the aircraft , which shall constitute a part
of the contract between the passenger and the air carrier. This constitutes another exception to the proscription
against warrantless searches and seizures. As admitted by Canton and shown in Annex D of her Brief, the
aforequoted provision is stated in the Notice to All Passengers located at the final security checkpoint at the
departure lounge. From the said provision, it is clear that the search, unlike in the Terry search, is not limited to
weapons. Passengers are also subject to search for prohibited materials or substances. In this case, after the
metal detector alarmed Canton consented to be frisked, which resulted in the discovery of packages on her body.
It was too late in the day for her to refuse to be further searched because the discovery of the packages whose
contents felt like rice granules, coupled by her apprehensiveness and her obviously false statement that the
packages contained only money, aroused the suspicion of the frisker that Canton was hiding something illegal. It
must be repeated that R.A. No. 6235 authorizes search for prohibited materials or substances. To limit the action
of the airport security personnel to simply refusing her entry into the aircraft and sending her home (as suggested
by appellant), and thereby depriving them of the ability and facility to act accordingly, including to further search
without warrant, in light of such circumstances, would be to sanction impotence and ineffectivity in law
enforcement, to the detriment of society. Thus, the strip search in the ladies room was justified under the https://www.chanrobles.
circumstances. com/scdecisions/jurisprudence2002/dec20
02/gr_148825_2002.php 5/26/2020
Digest 123 People vs. Valdez, GR Moral "Appellant Abe Valdez was charged for cultivating marijuana plants Whether or not the search and No. In the instant case, recall that PO2 Balut testified that they first located the marijuana plants before appellant https://lawphil.
No. 129296, Sep 25, punishable under section 9 of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, as seizure of the marijuana plants in was arrested without a warrant. Hence, there was no valid warrantless arrest which preceded the search of net/judjuris/juri2000/sep2000/gr_129296_
2000 amended. On September 24, 1996, SPO3 Marcelo Tipay received the present case lawful. appellant's premises. Note further that the police team was dispatched to appellant's kaingin precisely to search 2000.html
a tip from an unnamed informer about the presence of a marijuana for and uproot the prohibited flora. The seizure of evidence in "plain view" applies only where the police officer is
plantation, allegedly owned by appellant at Sitio Bulan, Ibung, not searching for evidence against the accused, but inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. Clearly,
Villaverde, Nueva Vizcaya. The prohibited plants were allegedly their discovery of the cannabis plants was not inadvertent. We also note the testimony of SPO2 Tipay that upon
planted close to appellant's hut. A reaction team was then formed arriving at the area, they first had to "look around the area" before they could spot the illegal plants. Patently, the
to verify the report. Inspector Parungao gave them specific seized marijuana plants were not "immediately apparent" and a "further search" was needed. In sum, the
instructions to "uproot said marijuana plants and arrest the marijuana plants in question were not in "plain view" or "open to eye and hand." The "plain view" doctrine, thus,
cultivator of same." The following day, said police team, conducted cannot be made to apply.
the warrantless search at his property and discovered seven (7) The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is the immunity of one's person, which includes his
fully grown marijuana plants which was then uprooted and seized. residence, his papers, and other possessions. The guarantee refers to "the right of personal security"of the
The RTC then found Valdez GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of individual. As appellant correctly points out, what is sought to be protected against the State's unlawful intrusion
the charge. Hence, filed a petition for automatic review in the SC, are persons, not places. To conclude otherwise would not only mean swimming against the stream, it would also
contending that there was unlawful search. " lead to the absurd logic that for a person to be immune against unreasonable searches and seizures, he must be
in his home or office, within a fenced yard or a private place. The Bill of Rights belongs as much to the person in
the street as to the individual in the sanctuary of his bedroom.
We therefore hold, with respect to the first issue, that the confiscated plants were evidently obtained during an
illegal search and seizure.
3/11/2020
10
Digest 124 Anonymous Letter Rodillas Two anonymous letters were filed against Atty. Miguel Morales, 1) Whether or not the pleadings 1) No. Enshrined in our Constitution is the inviolable right of the people to be secure in their persons and http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.
Complaint against Atty. Branch Clerk of Court of MeTC, Branch 67, Manila, alleging the found in Atty. Morales's personal properties against unreasonable searches and seizures, which is provided for under Section 2, Article III thereof. ph/dtSearch/dtisapi6.dll?
M. Morales, A. M. No. following offenses: attending to personal cases while using official computer admissible in the The exclusionary rule under Section 3(2), Article III of the Constitution also bars the admission of evidence cmd=getdoc&stgd=yes&DocId=53615&re
P-08-2519/A.M. No. P- time, office supplies, equipment and utilities, leaving the office after present administrative case obtained in violation of such right. quest=A%2e%20M%2e%20No%2e%
08-2520, Nov. 19, 2008 logging-in in the morning only to return in the afternoon, and playing against him. 20P%2d08%2d2519%2fA%2eM%2e%
(En Banc) computer games whenever he was at the office. The Office of the 2) Yes. The fact that the present case is administrative in nature does not render the above principle inoperative. 20No%2e%20P%2d08%
Court Administrator (OCA) conducted a spot investigation aided by 2) Whether or not the right As expounded in Zulueta v.Court of Appeals, any violation of the afore stated constitutional right renders the 2d2520&index=%
NBI agents. The team was able to access Atty. Morales personal against unreasonable searches evidence obtained inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. There are exceptions to this rule one of which 2aaa1de0751c9cff7439815a4b27e3ab58&
computer and print two documents stored in its hard drive, which and seizures be invoked in an is consented warrantless searchFlags=1249280&autoStopLimit=0&f
turned out to be two pleadings, one filed in the CA and another in administrative case. search. uzziness=3&SearchForm=C%3a%
the RTC of Manila, both in the name of another lawyer. Atty. 5celibrev%5celibsearch%5cdtform
Morales’ computer was seized and taken in custody of the OCA but 3) Whether or not there was As the Court has staunchly declared:
was later ordered released on his motion, but with order to the consented warrantless search in The Bill of Rights is the bedrock of constitutional government. If people are stripped naked of their rights as
MISO to first retrieve the files stored therein. Atty. Morales, in this case. human beings, democracy cannot survive and government becomes meaningless. This explains why the Bill of
defense, argues that since the pleadings were acquired from his Rights, contained as it is in Article III of the Constitution, occupies a position of primacy in the fundamental law
personal computer which was confiscated without any valid search way above the articles on governmental power.
and seizure order, such evidence should be considered as the fruits
of a poisonous tree as it violated his right to privacy. The OCA The right against unreasonable search and seizure in turn is at the top of the hierarchy of rights, next only to, if not
disagreed with the report of the Investigating Judge that there was on the same plane as, the right to life, liberty and property, which is protected by the due process clause. This is
no evidence to support the charge against Atty. Morales as no one as it should be for, as stressed by a couple of noted freedom advocates, the right to personal security which,
from the OCC personnel who were interviewed would give a along with the right to privacy, is the foundation of the right against unreasonable search and seizure "includes the
categorical and positive statement affirming the charges against right to exist, and the right to enjoyment of life while existing." x x x x
Atty. Morales, along with other court personnel also charged in the Unreasonable searches and seizures are the menace against which the constitutional guarantees afford full
same case. The OCA recommended that Atty. Morales should be protection. While the power to search and seize may at times be necessary to the public welfare, still it may be
found guilty of gross misconduct. exercised and the law enforced without transgressing the constitutional rights of the citizens, for the enforcement
of no statute is of sufficient importance to justify indifference to the basic principles of government.
3) No. Consent to a search is not to be lightly inferred and must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. It
must be voluntary in order to validate an otherwise illegal search; that is, the consent must be unequivocal,
specific, intelligently given and uncontaminated by any duress or coercion. The burden of proving, by clear and
positive testimony, that the necessary consent was obtained and that it was freely and voluntarily given lies with
the State. Acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights is not to be presumed and courts indulge every
reasonable presumption against waiver of fundamental constitutional rights. To constitute a valid consent or
waiver of the constitutional guarantee against obtrusive searches, it must be shown that (1) the right exists; (2)
that the person involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the existence of such right; and (3) the
said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right.
In this case, what is missing is a showing that Atty. Morales had an actual intention to relinquish his right. While
he may have agreed to the opening of his personal computer and the printing of files therefrom, in the presence of
DCA Dela Cruz, his staff and some NBI agents during the March 16, 2005 spot investigation, it is also of record
that Atty. Morales immediately filed an administrative case against said person questioning the validity of the
investigation, specifically invoking his constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure.
And as there is no other evidence, apart from the pleadings, retrieved from the unduly confiscated personal
computer of Atty. Morales, to hold him administratively liable, the Court has no choice but to dismiss the charges
herein against him for insufficiency of evidence
3/11/2020
Digest 125 Sr. Inspector Valeroso Bechayda A warrant of arrest was issued and released to the petitioner in a Whether or not the warrantless No.
vs. CA, & People, GR case of kidnapping for ransom. When the warrant was served, search and seizure of the firearm
No. 164815, Sep. 3, Valeroso was arrested and searched (without a search warrant) in and ammunition valid? For one, the warrantless search could not be justified as an incident to a lawful arrest. Searches and seizures
2009 the boarding house of his children. They pointed their guns on him incident to lawful arrests are governed by Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, which reads:
and tied him and pulled him out of the room as the raiding team
went back inside, searched and ransacked the room. Later, an SEC. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. – A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons
operative came out of the room exclaiming that he has found a gun or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search
inside. The firearm according to the petitioner was issued to Jerry warrant.
Valeroso by virtue of a Memorandum Receipt. Jerry C. Valeroso It is worthy to note that the purpose of the exception (warrantless search as an incident to a lawful arrest) is to
was then charged with violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 for protect the arresting officer from being harmed by the person arrested, who might be armed with a concealed
illegally possessing a revolver bearing serial number 52315 without weapon, and to prevent the latter from destroying evidence within reach. The exception, therefore, should not be
securing the necessary license/permit. The petitioner through a strained beyond what is needed to serve its purpose. In the case before us, search was made in the locked
letter of appeal asked the court to be reconsidered. cabinet which cannot be said to have been within Valeroso’s immediate control. Thus, the search exceeded the
bounds of what may be considered as an incident to a lawful arrest.
PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE not applicable!

The "plain view doctrine" may not be used to launch unbridled searches and indiscriminate seizures or to extend a
general exploratory search made solely to find evidence of defendant’s guilt. The doctrine is usually applied where
a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an
incriminating object.
INADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE SEIZED IN ILLEGAL SEARCH

Clearly, the search made was illegal, a violation of Valeroso’s right against unreasonable search and seizure.
Consequently, the evidence obtained in violation of said right is inadmissible in evidence against him.
Unreasonable searches and seizures are the menace against which the constitutional guarantees afford full
protection. While the power to search and seize may at times be necessary for public welfare, still it may be
exercised and the law enforced without transgressing the constitutional rights of the citizens, for no enforcement
of any statute is of sufficient importance to justify indifference to the basic principles of government. Those who
are supposed to enforce the law are not justified in disregarding the rights of an individual in the name of order.
Order is too high a price to pay for the loss of liberty.
PRINCIPLE:
Because a warrantless search is in derogation of a constitutional right, peace officers who conduct it cannot
invoke regularity in the performance of official functions.
3/9/2020 5/28/2020
126 Go was convicted for the violation of the offense charged. On
appeal, Go assails the decision of the RTC and asks for the return
of the properties seized that were not included in the search
warrant.
127 Pp. of the Philippines Alidio
vs. Breis, et. al., GRN
205823, Aug 17, 2015 3/16/2020 3/16/2020
11
128 Pp. of the Phil. vs. Ocfemia After receiving information that a certain couple, Poks and Rose Whether or not the warrantless No. The arrest of the accused-appellant did not justify the search of the personal belongings because the arrest https://www.chanrobles.
Mentoy, GRN 223140, was transporting and selling marijuana in Barangay Malatgao, search and seizure of accused did not precede the search. Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, clearly states that "[a] person lawfully com/cralaw/2019septemberdecisions.
Sep 4, 2019 Narra, Palawan, the Nan-a Municipal Police Station conducted Mentoy was valid arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in php?id=852
surveillance operation in the National Highway, Barangay the commission of an offense without a search warrant." Accordingly, there should first be a lawful arrest before
Malatgao, Nan-a, Palawan. The informant relayed to the team that the warrantless search can be made; the process cannot be reversed. As such, the search made against the
accused-appellant will be boarding a Charing 19 shuttle van (van) accused-appellant would be valid only if sufficient probable cause to support it existed independently of the arrest.
with plate number VRA 698. The police officers flagged down the
van as it approached them and declared that they were conducting What the foregoing disquisition indicates is that the arresting officers plainly ignored the constitutional and
a checkpoint. PO1 Rosales asked the passengers who among statutory limitations prescribed for a valid search at a checkpoint. They effected the warrantless search of the
them was Rose and accused-appellant presented herself. PO1 personal effects of the accused-appellant without sufficient probable cause, and on that basis arrested her. If the
Rosales then asked her where her baggage was and she arrest did not precede the search, where was the probable cause that justified her warrantless arrest?
requested the driver to hand her the pink bag. However, PO1
Rosales noticed that she transferred a block-shaped bundle from The conclusion is inevitable that both the warrantless arrest of the accused-appellant and the warrantless search
the pink bag to a black bag. They suspected that it was marijuana of her personal effects were unreasonable. The consequence is to invalidate the search. The marijuana seized
leaves. The police officers then restrained accused Rosemarie from her should be deemed inadmissible in evidence pursuant to the exclusionary rule enunciated under Section
Gardon-Mentoy. 3(2), Article III of the Constitution. With the confiscated marijuana being the very corpus delicti of the crime
charged, the accused-appellant should be acquitted because the evidence adduced against her was entirely
inadmissible.
5/28/2020
12

Consti2 Case Digests - Searches & Seizures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consti2 Case Digests - Searches & Seizures

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consti2 Case Digests - Searches & Seizures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Consti2 Case Digests Searches & Seizures

No. Case Title (Format: Case Facts Issue/s Ruling

On the basis of the Constitution NO.

Wherefore, accused-appellant Binad Sy Chua is hereby Acquitted. 3/9/2020 5/18/2020

PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE not applicable!

INADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE SEIZED IN ILLEGAL SEARCH

You might also like