PRESENTATION

ON

ARREST, SEARCH and SEIZURE

ORDER OF PRESENTATION:

1. Learning Objectives
2. Legal Basis
3. Definition of Terms
4. Rules and Jurisprudence
5. Arrest
6. Search and Seizure
Learning Objective:

At the end of the lecture, the attendees are expected to know the
following:

1. What is arrest, search and seizure

2. Instances when arrest without warrant is lawful
3. Who are authorized to issue warrants of arrest
4. Requisites for the issuance of a search warrant
5. Validity of a search warrant
6. Objects which may be the subject of a search warrant
7. Instances of valid warrantless search
LEGAL BASIS:
1. 1987 Philippine Constitution
The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and
no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue,
except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by a Judge, after examination under oath
or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses
he may produce, particularly describing the place to
be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
[Sec. 2, Art. III Of The 1987 Philippine Constitution]
LEGAL BASIS:
2. Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Court provides
the definition of arrest, instances when arrest
without warrant is lawful, guidelines on how to
effect arrest and the duty of the arresting officer.

LEGAL BASIS:
3. Supreme Court Decisions
Scope of protection:
 Available to all persons, including aliens whether
accused of a crime or not. Artificial persons are also
entitled to the guarantee, although they may be
required to open their books of accounts for
examination by the estate in the exercise of their
taxing and police powers.
Definition of Terms:
A. Arrest
Definition: It is the taking of a person into custody in order
that he may be bound to answer for the commission of
an offense..
- It is made by an actual restraint of a person to be arrested,
or by his/her submission to the custody of the person
making the arrest. The person arrested shall not be
subjected to a greater restraint than is necessary for his
detention. An arrest may be made on any day and at
anytime of the day or night. (Sections 1, 2 and 3, Rule 113
of the Revised Rules of Court)
Definition of Terms:
B. Warrant of Arrest:
 It is an order in writing, issued in the name of the
People of the Philippines, signed by the judge and
directed to a peace officer, commanding him/her to
arrest a person designated and take him into custody
of the law in order that he/she may be bound to
answer for the commission of an offense.
RULES:
I. Right is personal and may only be invoked by the
person entitled to it.
II. Right may be invoked only against government and
its agencies tasked with law enforcement. Right may
not be invoked against private individuals.
RULES:
Q. When is the proper time to raise objection to the
validity of the warrant?
A. It must be made before entry of plea.
In (Pp vs. Robles, June 8, 2000), the SC ruled that
the failure to do so constitutes a waiver against
unlawful restraint of liberty.
Q. May the illegality of the arrest affect the
jurisdiction of the trial court?

A. No, because even in instances not allowed by law, a

warrantless arrest is not a jurisdictional defect, and
any objection thereto is waived when the person
arrested submits to arraignment without any objection.
(Pp. vs Del Rosario, April 14, 1999)
In Pp vs. Marti, 193 SCRA 57, the husband of the owner of a
forwarding agency, following the SOP, opened the boxes for final
inspection. From that inspection and owing to his curiosity, he
took several grams thereof. He brought the samples to the NBI.
The NBI agents went back with him and in the presence of this
agents, he totally opened all the four wrapped packages. It turned
out that they were Marijuana flowering tops.
Q. Are the marijuana tops admissible in evidence?
A. YES, the constitutional protection against
unreasonable searches and seizures refers to immunity of
one’s person from interference by the government. It
cannot be extended to acts committed by private
individuals. Merely to observe and look at that which is
plain in sight is not a search.
V. Only a Judge may validly issue a warrant.
Art. 38 of the Labor Code of the Philippines
grants the Secretary of Labor and Employment
the authority to issue orders of arrest, search and
seizures.
Q. Is Article 38 of the Labor Code valid?
A. No, it was declared unconstitutional. (Salazar
vs. Achacoso, 183 SCRA 145)
Q. Is the warrant of arrest issued by the CID against a
Chinese mother and her son who were already
overstaying valid?

A. Yes, the warrant is valid. The limitation contemplates

an order of arrest in the exercise of judicial power as
preliminary step or incidental to the prosecution or
proceedings for an offense, not as a measure
indispensable to carry out a valid decision by a
competent official, such as legal order of deportation
issued by the CID in pursuance of a valid law. (Morano
vs. Vivo, 20 SCRA 562)
Q. Is the arrest of pedophiles on orders of CID
commissioner Santiago valid?
A. YES, because there was probable cause, coupled
with months of surveillance effected by agents against
the suspected pedophiles. The requirements that
probable cause is to be determined only by a judge does
not extend to deportation cases which are not criminal
but administrative in nature.
continuation;
The existence of probable cause justified the arrest
and seizures of the photo negatives, photographs and
posters without a warrant. Petitioner was found with
young boys in their respective rooms and other
circumstances. The CID agents had reasonable ground
to believe that petitioners had committed “pedophilia”
which, though not punished under the RPC, is a
behavior offensive to public morals and violative of the
declared policy of the state to promote and protect the
physical, moral, spiritual and social well being of our
youth. (Harvey vs Santiago, 162 SCRA 840)
Warrantless Arrest, When Valid?
A. When the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offence in his
presence,
B. When an offense had just been committed and there is
probable cause to believe, based on his personal knowledge of
facts or of other circumstances, that the person to be arrested
has committed the offense,
C. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped
from penal establishment or place where he is serving final
judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending,
or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement
to another, (Sec. 5, Rule 113, Revised Rules of Court)
Warrantless Arrest, When Valid?
i. When a police officer sees the offense,
although at a distance, or hears the disturbances
created by thereby, and proceeds at once to the scene
thereof, he may effect arrest without a warrant. The
offense is deemed committed in the presence of or
within the view of the officer.(Pp. vs. Sucro, 195)
ii. The arrest of the accused inside his house
following hot pursuit of the person who committed
the offense in flagrante was held valid.(Pp. vs. De
Lara, September 5, 1994)
Requisites for a valid in flagrante arrest:
1. The person to be arrested must execute an
overt act indicating that he had just committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit a
crime; and.
2. Such overt act is done in the presence or within
the view of the arresting officer. (Pp. vs. Molina, G.R.
No. 133917, reiterated in Pp. vs. Sy Chua, G.R. No.
136066-67 and in Pp. vs. Tudtud, G.R. No. 144037)
Note: “reliable information” alone is not sufficient to
constitute probable cause to justify arrest.
Requisites for a valid arrest under paragraph B:
1. an offense has just been committed, and
2. the person making the arrest has probable
cause to believe, based on his personal knowledge of
facts or of other circumstances, that the person to be
arrested had committed it.
Hence, there must be a large measure of
immediacy between the time the offense is
committed and the time of the arrest. (Reviewer in
Political Law, Antonio B. Nachura, 2006 ed.)
Jurisprudence on paragraph B:
1. After the policemen had stationed themselves
at possible exits, they saw the fast approaching
vehicle, its plate number, and the dented hood and
railings thereof. These formed part of the arresting
officer’s personal knowledge of the fact that Padilla’s
vehicle was the one involved in the incident. (Robin
Padilla vs. CA, G.R. No. 121017, March 12, 1997)
Thus it was held that there was a valid arrest, as
there was neither supervening event or considerable
lapse of time between the hit-and-run and the
apprehension.
Jurisprudence on paragraph B:
2. Six days after the shooting, as the petitioner
presented himself before the San Juan Police Station
to verify news that he was being hunted, the police
detained him because an eyewitness had positively
identified him as the gunman. The Court held that
there was no valid arrest, it cannot be considered as
within the meaning of “the offense had just been
committed” inasmuch as six days had already
elapsed, neither did the police had personal
knowledge of facts that Go shot Maguan. (Go vs. CA,
206 SCRA 138)
 SEARCH and SEIZURE
What is a Search Warrant? It is an order in writing,
issued in the name of the people of the Philippines,
signed by a judge, and directed to a peace officer,
commanding him or her to search for personal
property and bring it before the court.(Section 1, Rule
126, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure)
 Requisites for the Issuance of a
Search Warrant

Probable cause in connection with one specific

offense.
To be determined personally by a judge.

After examination under oath or affirmation of the

complainant and the witnesses presented.
Particularly describing the place to be searched and
things to be seized.
 Objects of a Search Warrant
 Properties subject of the offense
 Stolen, embezzled proceeds, or fruits of the
offense.
 Weapons, equipment, and other items
used or intended to be used as the means
of committing an offense.
 Objects that are illegal per se even if not
particularly described in the SW, under the
plain view doctrine.
Data needed in the Application for SW
 Office applying for Search Warrant
 Name of officer-applicant

 Nature of the offense

 Name of target, if known

 Specific address of the place to be searched

 Particularity of things/articles

Note: The application shall be approved for filing by

the Chief of Office. (Revised Police Operational
Procedure-December 2013)
Q. Where application for search warrant shall be filed?

A. As a general rule, an application for search warrant shall

be filed with the following:

1. any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime

was committed
2. for compelling reasons stated in the application, any
court within the judicial region where the crime was
committed if the place of the commission of the crime is
known, or any court within the judicial region where the
warrant shall be enforced. (Sec. 2, Rule 126, Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure)
Exception:

The Executive Judge and Vice Executive Judges of

RTC Manila and Quezon City are authorized to act on
all applications for search warrants filed by the PNP,
NBI, PAOC-TF and REACT-TF involving heinous
crimes, illegal gambling, dangerous drugs and illegal
possession of firearms, and to issue the warrants, if
justified, which may be served in places outside the
territorial jurisdiction of said courts. (SC A.M. No. 99-
20-09-SC dated January 25, 2000)
Q. Who is the official authorized to endorse the
application for search warrant?

A. Supreme Court A.M. No. 99-20-09-SC provides

that the application shall be personally endorsed by
the Heads of the agencies. Such requirement was
retained under OCA Circular No. 40-2016 issued last
February 10, 2016 and further including the Head of
PDEA and also included are violations of the Anti-
Money Laundering Act and the Tariff and Customs
Code.
Q. May the authority to endorse application for
search warrant be delegated?
A. Yes, OCA Circular No. 88-2-16 issued last April 4, 2016
provides that, all applications for search warrants enforceable
within the territorial jurisdiction of the issuing court endorsed
or authorized by the following officers of the PNP shall be
sufficient compliance with OCA Circular No. 40-2016.
1. Deputy Chief for Operations
2. Director for Investigation and Detective Management
3. Directors for Integrated Police Operations
4. Regional Directors
5. Directors, National Support Units
6. Regional Chiefs, National Support Units
7. Provincial Directors
8. Provincial Officers, National Support Units, and
9. Chiefs of Police
continuation…

A. However, applications for search warrants filed with the

Executive Judges of the City of Manila and Quezon City, be
enforced outside their respective territorial jurisdictions
pursuant to A.M. No. 99-10-09-SC, must be personally
endorsed or authorized by Chief of the PNP himself, or by
the Director for Investigation and Detective Management
of the PNP, to whom the authority has been delegated
 EVIDENCE NEEDED
1. Photograph of the target house or building.
2. Sketch and vicinity map of the place.
3. Authority or proof of ownership of the owner.
4. Request for police assistance from owner.
5. Affidavit complaint of owner narrating the violation.
6. Affidavit of deponent narrating his personal
knowledge on violation of law.
7. Photograph of actual violation, if possible.
8. Test buy result, if applicable.
 VALIDITY OF SW
• 10 days from date of issuance and may be served
at any time of the day except when otherwise
provided in the SW.
• If cannot be accomplished in one day, the search
can be continued the following day or until
completed provided it is within the 10-day
period.
• If cannot be accomplished within a 10-day
period, application for extension should be filed.
 HOW TO SERVE SEARCH WARRANT?

1. The officer serving the SW must inform the

owner/occupant of his purpose and authority.
2. If he is refused admittance he may force himself
in to execute the warrant, and if he was detained
therein, he may force himself out to liberate
himself.
3. The search must be done in an orderly manner
and in the presence of least two (2) witnesses
residing in the same locality.
4. The officer seizing the property must issue a
detailed receipt of the things seized to the person
in whose possession it was found, or in the absence
of such person, he must, in the presence of at
least two (2) witnesses, leave such receipt in the
place where such things were seized.

5. The officer must immediately deliver the things

or property seized to the judge who issued the
warrant, together with an inventory duly verified
under oath.
 Valid Warrantless Searches

1. WHERE PROHIBITED ARTICLES ARE IN PLAIN

VIEW. – Objects in the “plain view” of an officer who
has the right to be in the position to have that view
are subject to seizure and may be presented as
evidence. It is usually applied where the police
officer is not searching for evidence against the
accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes upon
an incriminating object. [People v. Musa, 217 SCRA
597]
REQUISITES FOR PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE TO APPLY:
a. A prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless
arrest in which the police are legally present in the
pursuit of their official duties.
b. The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the
police who have the right to be where they are.
c. The evidence must be immediately apparent.
d. Plain view justified the seizure of the evidence without
any further search. [People v. Musa, 217 SCRA 597]
2. SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO A LAWFUL ARREST.
 A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous
weapons or anything, which may be used as proof of the
commission of an offense, without a search warrant. It must
however, be contemporaneous to the arrest and made within a
permissible area of search. [Sec. 12, Rule 126, Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedures]
 In order that a valid search may be made as an incident to a
lawful arrest, it is necessary that the apprehending officer must
have been spurred by probable cause in effecting the arrest
which could be considered as one in cadence with the
instances of permissible arrests. [People v. Montilla,
GRN123872, January 30, 1998]
3. WHEN THE RIGHT IS VOLUNTARILY WAIVED.

REQUISITES:
 It must appear first that the right exists;
 The person involved had knowledge, either
actual or constructive, of the existence of such
right; [People v. Damaso, 212 SCRA 457]
 The said person had an actual intention to
relinquish the right. [De Garcia v. Locsin, 65
Phil 689]
4. WHEN THERE IS A VALID REASON TO “STOP-
AND-FRISK”.
The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the search as
akin to “stop-and-frisk” which was defined in Terry vs. Ohio
as the vernacular designation of the right of a police officer to
stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him and pat him for
weapons whenever he observes unusual conduct which leads
him to conclude that criminal activity may be afoot. In the
case of Manalili v. CA, GR No. 113447, October 7, 1997, the
policemen chanced upon the accused who had reddish eyes,
walking in a swaying manner, and who appeared to be high
on drugs, thus the search.
5. SEARCH OF VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT.
Q. May a fishing vessel found to be violating fishery laws
be seized without a warrant?
A. Yes, on two grounds: firstly, because they are usually
equipped with powerful motors that enable them to
elude pursuit; and secondly, because the seizure would
be an incident to a lawful arrest. (Roldan v. Arca, 65
SCRA 336)
Q. Can the police conduct warrantless search of a fishing
boat made on the strength of a report submitted by
Task Force Bantay Dagat?
A. YES, the validity of the warrantless search conducted by
the police on a fishing boat based on the report
submitted by Task Force Bantay Dagat was upheld.
(Hizon v. CA, 265 SCRA 517)
6. SEARCH OF MOVING VEHICLES.
 As a rule, automobiles may be searched only at
borders or constructive borders, and the
warrantless search of vehicles made within the
interior of territory is justified only if there is
probable cause. (People v. Balingan, 241 SCRA
277)
 In Valmonte v. de Villa, 178 SCRA 211, the
Supreme Court upheld the validity of
“checkpoints”, so long as it is required by the
exigencies of public order and conducted in a way
least intrusive to motorists.
 JURISPRUDENCE:
Pp. vs Syjuco, (64 Phil. Reports 667)- A warrant was based
on an information given by person who is considered a
reliable one, that certain fraudulent books, letters, etc were
being kept in the building occupied by Syjuco and after
making the required search, the peace officers seized n art
metal filing cabinet claimed to be owned by Atty. Remo.
SC- the search was illegal because there was no probable
cause to justify the search. The oath required must be that it
constitutes a guaranty that a person making it has personal
knowledge of the facts of the case and that it convinces the
judge, not the individual seeking the issuance of warrant of
arrest of the existence of probable cause.
 JURISPRUDENCE:
Soliven vs. Makasiar, (167 SCRA 193)- the SC
explained the words “personally determined”. First,
the judge may personally examine the complainant
and his witnesses and on the basis thereof, issue a
warrant of arrest. Second, he may also rely on the
prosecutor’s report or if on the basis thereof, he finds
no probable cause, he may disregard the prosecutor’s
report and require the submission of supporting
affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a
conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.
 JURISPRUDENCE:
Lim vs. Felix, (194 SCRA 292)- the SC ruled that a
judge cannot rely solely on the certification or
recommendation of the prosecutor that probable cause
exists in issuing a warrant of arrest. The certification
is ineffectual. It is the reports, affidavits, transcript of
stenographic notes and all other supporting documents
behind the prosecutor’s certification which are
material in assisting a judge the judge to make the
determination.
 JURISPRUDENCE:
Reyes vs. Montesa, (247 SCRA 85), the SC held that a
hearing is not necessary for the determination of probable
cause for the issuance of warrant of arrest. However, in
the case of Mantaring vs. Judge Roman, (254 SCRA 158),
where the judge is investigating judge (performing
administrative functions), and for him to issue a warrant
of arrest, he must (1) have examined under oath and in
writing the complainant and his witnesses; (2) to be
satisfied that there is probable cause; and (3) there is need
to place respondent under immediate custody in order not
to frustrate the ends of justice.
 JURISPRUDENCE:
Pangandaman vs. Casar, (159 SCRA 599), the scatter shot
warrant charging more than one offense was declared null and
void.
Pp vs. Veloso, (42 Phil. 886)- it is invariably recognized that the
warrant for the apprehension of an unnamed party is void
“except those causes where it contains a descriptio personae
such as will enable the officer to identify the accused”. The
description must be sufficient to indicate clearly the proper
person upon whom the warrant is to be served. There is,
however, a limit to John Doe warrants. Thus, a warrant for the
arrest of fifty John Does is of the nature of a general warrant
which does not satisfy the requirement of particularity of
description.
 JURISPRUDENCE:
In Pp vs. Givera, (Jan. 18, 2001) the SC said that
unlike a search warrant which has a lifespan of 10
days only from its issuance, a warrant of arrests,
unless specifically provided in the warrant, remains
enforceable until it is executed, recalled or quashed.
The 10 day is only a directive to the officer executing
the warrant to make a return to the court.
 JURISPRUDENCE:
People vs. Aruta, G.R. No. 120915, April 13, 1998:
The marijuana obtained  as a result of a warrantless
search is inadmissible as evidence for the following
reasons:
a. the policemen had sufficient time to apply for a
search warrant  but they failed to do so;
b. the accused was not acting suspiciously;
c. the identity of the accused was previously
ascertained so applying for a warrant should have
been easy;
*the accused in this case was acquitted.
 JURISPRUDENCE:
PEOPLE VS. MONTILLA, 284 SCRA 703
- The accused claims that the warrantless search and
seizure is illegal because the alleged information was
received by the police on June 19, 1994 and therefore,
they could have applied for a search warrant. The said
contention is without merit considering that the
information given by the informer is too sketchy and not
detailed enough for the obtention of the corresponding
arrest or search warrant. While there is indication that
the informer knows the courier, the records do not show
that he knew his name. On bare information, the police
could not have secured a warrant from a judge.
 JURISPRUDENCE:
Alvarez vs. CFI, (64 Phil. Reports 33)- an affidavit
was presented to the judge alleging that according to
reliable information, the petitioner kept in his house
books and documents in connection with the
activities as a money lender charging usurious rates
of interest in violation of law, the SC ruled that “a
reliable information is insufficient”. The oath
required must refer to the truth of the facts within the
personal knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses
to determine the existence of probable cause.
 JURISPRUDENCE:
Corro vs. Lising, (137 SCRA 541)- the court held that the
evident purpose of this requirement (particularity of
description of the place to searched) is to leave the officers
of the law without discretion regarding the articles they
should seize, to the end that unreasonable searches may not
be made and abuses may not be committed.
Pp vs Salanguit, (G.R. No. 133254-55, April 19, 2001)- the
court held that the description is deemed sufficient if the
officer serving the warrant can, with reasonable effort,
ascertain and identify the place to be searched and the
items to be seized.
 JURISPRUDENCE:
Aniag vs. Comelec, (237 SCRA 424)- “Consent” given
under intimidating or coercive circumstances is not
consent within the purview of the constitutional guarantee.
Terry vs. Ohio- the vernacular designation of the right of a
police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him
and pat him for weapons whenever he observes unusual
conduct which leads him to conclude that criminal activity
may be afoot.
In this case, the policemen chanced upon the accused who
had reddish eyes, walking in a swaying manner, and who
appeared to be high on drugs; thus, the search.
 JURISPRUDENCE:
Marcos vs. Ago Chi, 12 Phil. 439, the court held that an
officer making an arrest may take from the person
arrested any money or property found upon his person
which was used in the commission of the crime or was
the fruit of the crime or which might furnish the prisoner
with the means of committing violence, escaping or
which may be used in evidence in the trial of the case.
Note: The purpose of this exception is both to protect the
arresting officer against physical harm from the person
arrested from destroying evidence within his reach.
 JURISPRUDENCE:
Lepanto vs. CA (200 SCRA 338), where the court
held that when the accused was frisked and arrested in
the street for possession of Marijuana and when asked
if he had more, answered that he has more marijuana
in his house, the search conducted by the police
officers in the house and the consequent seizure of ten
plastic bags of Marijuana was held invalid because the
house was no longer within the jurisdiction and
control of the accused.
Thank you.