D.

Arrests, Searches, and Exception: If the nature of the goods

Seizures to be
The constitutional right against seized cannot be particularly
unreasonable determined:
searches and seizures is a • The nature of the thing is
personal right general in
invocable only by those whose description;
rights have • The thing is not required of a
been infringed or threatened to be very
infringed. technical description [Alvarez v. CFI
What constitutes a reasonable or of
unreasonable search and seizure Tayabas, G.R. No. 45358 (1937)].
in any The search warrant issued to
particular case is purely a judicial search
question, petitioner’s compound for
determinable from a unlicensed firearms
consideration of the was held invalid for failing to
circumstances involved [Valmonte v. describe the place
General with particularity, considering
De Villa, G.R. No. 83988 (1989)]. that the
1. Requisites of a Valid Warrant compound was made up of 200
a. Existence of probable cause; buildings, 15
b. Probable cause must be plants, 84 staff houses, one
personally airship, etc. spread
determined by the judge; out over 255 hectares [PICOP v.
c. After personal examination Asuncion,
under oath G.R. No. 122092 (1999)].
or affirmation of the complainant The description of the property to
and be seized
the witnesses he may produce; need not be technically accurate
d. On the basis of their personal or precise. Its
knowledge of the facts they are nature will vary according to
testifying to; whether the
e. There must be particularity in identity of the property is a
the matter of concern.
description of the places to The description is required to be
searched specific only
and the persons or things to be insofar as the circumstances will
seized; allow [Kho v.
and Judge Makalintal, G.R. Nos. 94902-06
f. The warrant must refer to one (1999)].
specific An error in the name of the
offense person in the search
(Requisite added by warrant does not invalidate the
jurisprudence). warrant, as long
General Rule: The warrant must as it contains a description
indicate the personae [including
particular place to be searched additional descriptions] that will
and person or enable the
thing to be seized.
officer to identify the accused The illegality of an arrest does
without difficulty not bar the state
[Nala v. Barroso, Jr., G.R. No. 153087 from the prosecution of the
(2003)]. accused. Despite
A John Doe search warrant is illegality of both search and
valid. There is arrest thus
nothing to prevent issue and inadmissibility of evidence
service of warrant acquired, guilt may
against a party whose name is still be established through
unknown eyewitness
[People v. Veloso, G.R. No. 23051 testimony [People v. Manlulu, G.R. No.
(1925)]. 102140
General Warrant (1994)].
Refers to a warrant that: a. Arrest Warrant
1. Does not describe with A written document issued by a
particularity the court ordering
things subject of the search and any peace officer to bring the
seizure; or person before the
2. Where probable cause has not court so that he may be bound to
been answer for
properly established. the commission of an offense.
Effects of a General Warrant b. Search Warrant
It is a void warrant [Nolasco v. Paño, An order in writing, issued in the
G.R. No. name of the
L-69803 (1985)]. People of the Philippines, signed
Any evidence obtained in by a judge
violation [of this or and directed to a peace officer,
the preceding section] shall be commanding
inadmissible for him to search for certain personal
any purpose in any proceeding property and
[Art. III, Sec. 3]. bring it before the court [Sec. 1,
The unconstitutionality of the Rule 126,
search and the ROC].
seizure or the use of a void Arrest Warrant v. Search Warrant
search warrant, Arrest Warrant
renders the items seized Search Warrant
inadmissible in There is a need for a preliminary
evidence. investigation
Exception: General descriptions will conducted by MTC or prosecutor.
not No need for a preliminary
invalidate the entire warrant if investigation.
other items have In determining probable cause,
been particularly described [Uy v. the judge need
BIR, G.R. not examine the complainant and
No. 129651 (2000)]. its witnesses
Effect of a Void Arrest Warrant and may rely on the findings of
A void arrest warrant would the prosecutor.
render the arrest Judge may adopt the prosecutor’s
invalid and illegal. findings,
disregard it and require the the act of committing rebellion [In
submission of re Umil v.
additional documents within five Ramos, G.R. No. 81567 (1991)].
(5) days, or Though kidnapping with serious
dismiss the case right away. illegal
In determining probable cause, detention is deemed a continuing
the judge is crime, it can
required to personally examine be considered as such only when
the applicant the
and the witnesses in searching deprivation of liberty is persistent
questions, in and
writing, and in oath. continuing from one place to
No lifespan another [Parulan
Valid only for 10 days v. Dir. of Prisons, G.R. No. L-28519
It may be issued only by a court (1968)].
of competent Buy-Bust; When Not Proper
jurisdiction. A buy-bust operation is a valid in
It can be issued by a court flagrante
without jurisdiction. arrest. The subsequent search of
However, if the resultant case is the person
a criminal arrested and the premises within
case implicating individuals, it his immediate
must be control is valid as an incident to a
transferred to a court with lawful arrest
competent [People v. Hindoy, G.R. No. 132662
jurisdiction. (2001)].
Valid Warrantless Arrests [Section 5, Instead of arresting the suspect
Rule after the sale
113, Rules on Criminal Procedure] in a buy-bust operation, the
a. In Flagrante Delicto officer returned to
When in his presence, the person the police headquarters and filed
to be his report. It
arrested has committed, is was only in the evening that he, without
actually committing, warrant, arrested the suspect at his house
or is attempting to commit an where dried marijuana leaves were found
offense. The and seized. This is unlawful arrest
person must be arrested after the [People v.
offense has Rodriguez, G.R. No. 138987 (1992)].
been committed and in the b. Hot Pursuit
presence of a police When an offense has just been
officer [People v. Mengote, G.R. No. committed and
87059 he has probable cause to believe
(1992)]. based on
Since rebellion is a continuing personal knowledge of facts or
offense, a rebel circumstances
may be arrested without a that the person to be arrested has
warrant at any time committed it
of the day or the night as he is Requisites:
deemed to be in 1. Offense had just been
committed; The
person must be immediately When the person to be arrested is
arrested after a prisoner
the commission of the offense who has escaped from a penal
[People v. establishment
Manlulu, supra]; or place where he is serving final
2. Person making the arrest has judgment or
probable is temporarily confined while his
cause to believe based on personal case is
knowledge of the facts and pending, or has escaped while
circumstances. being
Note: There must be a large transferred from one confinement
measure of to another.
immediacy between the time the d. Additional Exceptions
offense is When the Right is Voluntarily Waived
committed and the time of arrest. (Estoppel)
If there was Appellant is estopped from
an appreciable lapse of time between questioning the
the illegality of the arrest when he
arrest and commission of the voluntarily
crime, a warrant submitted himself to the
of arrest must be secured jurisdiction of the court
[Nachura]. by entering a plea of not guilty
The warrantless arrest of an and by
accused for selling participating in the trial [People v.
marijuana two days after he Salvatierra,
escaped is invalid UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2023
[People v. Kimura, G.R. No. 130805 Failure to raise the question of
(2004)]. admissibility
There is no personal knowledge during the trial is a waiver of the
when the right to assert
commission of a crime and inadmissibility on appeal [Manalili v.
identity of the CA, G.R.
accused were merely furnished No. 113447 (1997)].
by an Waiver is limited to the illegal
informant, or when the location of arrest. It does not
the firearm extend to the search made as an
was given by the wife of the incident
accused. It is not thereto, or the subsequent
enough that there is reasonable seizure of evidence
ground to allegedly found during the search
believe that the person to be [People v.
arrested has Peralta, G.R. No. 145176 (2004)].
committed a crime. That a crime Drug, Alcohol, and Blood Tests
has actually Randomized Drug Testing (RDT)
been committed is an essential for students
precondition and employees does not violate
[People v. Burgos, G.R. No. L-68955 the right to
(1986)]. privacy in the Constitution.
c. Escaped Prisoners Students do not
have a rational expectation of used as proof of the commission
privacy since of an offense,
they are minors and the school is without a search warrant [Sec.
in loco 12, Rule 126,
parentis. Employees and students in ROC].
universities, on the other hand, Absent a valid search warrant,
voluntarily the search is
subject themselves to the confined to the person being
intrusion because of lawfully arrested.
their contractual relation to the It is also a general rule that, as
company or an incident of
university. an arrest, the place or premises
But it is unconstitutional to where the
subject criminals to arrest was made can also be
RDT. Subjecting criminals to RDT searched without
would a search warrant. In this case,
violate their right against self- the extent and
incrimination. reasonableness of the search
It is also unconstitutional to must be decided
subject public on its own facts and
officials whose qualifications are circumstances.
provided for in What must be considered is the
the Constitution (e.g., members of balancing of
Congress) the individual’s right to privacy
to RDT. Subjecting them to RDT and the public’s
would amount interest in the prevention of crime
to imposing an additional and the
qualification not apprehension of criminals [Nolasco
provided for in the Constitution v. Paño,
[SJS v. supra].
Dangerous Drugs Board, G.R. No. Test for validity
157870 1. Item to be searched was within
(2008)]. the
Warrantless Searches arrester’s custody;
Probable cause (warrantless 2. Search was contemporaneous
searches) must with the
be “based on reasonable ground arrest
of suspicion An “arrest being incipiently illegal, it
or belief that a crime has been logically
committed or is follows that the subsequent
about to be committed” [People v. search was
Aruta, G.R. similarly illegal” [People v. Aruta,
No. 120915 (1998)]. supra].
3. Valid Warrantless Searches b. Plain View Doctrine
a. Warrantless Search Incidental to a Things seized are within plain
Lawful Arrest view of a
A person lawfully arrested may be searching party.
searched for Requisites
dangerous weapons or anything 1. Prior valid intrusion based on
which may be valid
warrantless arrest in which the “Stop and search” without a
police are warrant at military
legally present in the pursuit of or police checkpoints has been
their official declared not to
duties; be illegal per se so long as it is
2. Evidence was inadvertently required by
discovered by exigencies of public order and
the police who had the right to be conducted in a
where way least intrusive to motorists
they are; [Valmonte v. de
3. Evidence must be immediately Villa, G.R. No. 83988 (1989)].
apparent; These are permissible if limited to the
4. “Plain view” justified mere following:
seizure of 1. Where the officer merely draws
evidence without further search aside the
[People v. curtain of a vacant vehicle which
Aruta, supra; N.B. substantially the is parked
same on the public fair grounds;
as Nala v. Barroso requirements]. 2. Simply looks into a vehicle;
An object is in “plain view” if the 3. Flashes a light therein without
object itself is opening the
plainly exposed to sight. Where car’s doors;
the seized 4. Where the occupants are not
object is inside a closed package, subjected to
the object is a physical or body search;
not in plain view and, therefore, 5. Where the inspection of the
cannot be vehicles is
seized without a warrant. limited to a visual search or
However, if the visual
package proclaims its contents, inspection; and
whether by its 6. Where the routine check is
distinctive configuration, its conducted in a
transparency, or if fixed area.
its contents are obvious to an It is well to clarify, however, that
observer, then routine
the contents are in plain view, inspections do not give police
and may be officers carte
seized [Caballes v. CA, G.R. No. blanche discretion to conduct
136292 warrantless
(2002)]. searches in the absence of
It must be immediately apparent probable cause.
to the police When a vehicle is stopped and
that the items that they observe subjected to an
may be extensive search - as opposed to
evidence of a crime, contraband a mere
or otherwise routine inspection - such a
subject to seizure [People v. Nuevas, warrantless search
G.R. No. has been held to be valid only as
170233 (2007)]. long as the
c. Search of a Moving Vehicle
officers conducting the search The police are allowed to conduct
have warrantless
reasonable or probable cause to searches on behalf of the
believe before Department of
the search that they will find the Customs.
instrumentality They are authorized to open and
or evidence pertaining to a crime, examine any
in the vehicle box, trunk, or other containers
to be searched [People v. Manago, where he has
G.R. No. reasonable cause to believe that
212340 (2016)]. such items
d. Consented Warrantless Search were hidden from customs search
Requisites [Papa v.
1. Must appear that right exists; Mago, G.R. No. L-27360 (1968)].
2. Person involved had actual or Sec. 219 of the Customs
constructive Modernization and
knowledge of the existence of Tariff Act states that no warrant
such right; is required for
3. Said person had an actual police or authorized persons to
intent to pass, enter,
relinquish the right [People v. Aruta, search any land, enclosure,
supra]. building,
The mere failure to object to the warehouse, vessels, aircrafts,
search and vehicles but not
seizure does not constitute a dwelling.
waiver. Purpose of Customs Search
The waiver may be express or To verify whether or not custom
implied. When duties and
one voluntarily submits to a taxes were paid for their
search or consents importation.
to have it made of his
person/premises, he is f. Routine Security Checks
precluded from later complaining The Court held that the search
[People v. and seizure of
Kagui Malasugui, G.R. No. 44335 an illegal drug during a routine
(1936)]. airport
There is presumption against inspection made pursuant to the
waiver by the aviation
courts. It is the State that has the security procedures is a
burden of constitutionally
proving, by clear and convincing reasonable administrative search.
evidence, that While the right of the people to be
the necessary consent was secure in
obtained and that it their persons, houses, papers,
was voluntarily and freely given [Caballes and effects
v. against unreasonable searches
CA, supra]. and seizures is
e. Customs Search (Enforcement of guaranteed by Section 2, Article
Fishing, Customs, and Immigration III of the 1987
Law)
Constitution, a routine security 4. The scope of the search is
check being limited to the
conducted in air and sea ports outer surface of the subject’s
has been clothing.
recognized exception [People v. Accordingly, to sustain the
O’Cochlain, validity of a stop and
G.R. No. 229071 (2018)]. frisk search, the arresting officer
g. Stop and Frisk should have
For a valid stop and frisk search, personally observed two (2) or
the arresting more suspicious
officer must have had personal circumstances, the totality of
knowledge of which would then
fact, which would engender a create a reasonable inference of
reasonable criminal
degree of suspicion of an illicit activity to compel the arresting
act [Manibog v. officer to
People, G.R. No. 211214 (2019)]. investigate further [Manibog v. People,
Test supra].
Whether or not a reasonably h. Exigent and Emergency
prudent man in Circumstances
the circumstances would be The raid and seizure of firearms
warranted in the and
belief that his safety or that of ammunition at the height of the
others was in 1989 coup
danger [Terry v. Ohio, 392 US d’état, was held valid, considering
1(1968)]. the exigent
Test for Validity of a Stop-and-Frisk and emergency situation. The
Search as Established by Jurisprudence: military
1. There must be specific and operatives had reasonable ground
articulable facts to believe
which, taken together with that a crime was being
rational committed, and they
inferences, reasonably warrant had no opportunity to apply for a
the search
intrusion. warrant from the courts because
2. The officer must identify the latter were
himself and make closed. Under such urgency and
reasonable inquiries. exigency, a
3. The “frisk” is permitted to search warrant could be validly
search for dispensed with
weapons for the protection of the [People v. de Gracia, G.R. Nos.
police 102009-10
officer, where he has reason to (1994)].
believe that Administrative Arrests
he is dealing with an armed and Arrests made as an incident to a
dangerous deportation
individual, regardless of probable proceeding. The power to deport
cause for aliens is an
a crime. attribute of sovereignty and
essential to self
preservation of every state [De FOR UP CANDIDATES
Leon]. ONLYCONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2
The constitutional provision POLITICAL LAW
against Page 128 of 384
unreasonable searches and UP Law Bar Operations Commission 2023
seizures does not proceeding [Stonehill v. Diokno, G.R.
require judicial intervention in the No. L-
execution of 19550 (1967)].
a final order of deportation issued The exclusionary rule extends to
in evidence
accordance with law. It obtained through uncounseled
contemplates an order confession
of arrest in the exercise of [People v. Alicando, G.R. No. 117487
judicial power as a (1995)].
step preliminary or incidental to The Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
prosecution or The Exclusionary Rule is also
proceedings or for a given offense extended to
or exclude evidence which is
administrative action, not as a derived or directly
measure obtained from that which was
indispensable to carry out a valid illegally seized
decision by a [Bautista, Basic Criminal
competent official, such as a Procedure (2010),
legal order of hereinafter Bautista].
deportation issued by the Once the primary source (tree) is
Commissioner of shown to
Immigration in pursuance of a have been unlawfully obtained,
valid legislation any secondary
[Morano v. Vivo, 20 SCRA 562 (1967)]. or derivative evidence (fruit)
In deportation cases, an arrest (of derived from it is
an also inadmissible.
undesirable alien) ordered by the Effects of Unreasonable Searches and
Seizures
President or
An unlawful search will result in
his duly authorized
the exclusion
representatives, in order to
from admission as evidence of
carry out a final decision of
that which was
deportation is valid.
obtained from such unlawful
It is valid, however, because of
search and
the recognized
seizure.
supremacy of the Executive in
Further, an unlawful search and
matters
seizure may
involving foreign affairs [Salazar v.
justify:
Achacoso,
G.R. No. 81510 (1990)]. 1. The use of self-help in the form
4. Exclusionary Rule of
All evidence obtained in violation resistance to such unlawful
of Sec. 2, Art. search and
III shall be inadmissible for any seizure;
purpose in any 2. The criminal prosecution of the
searching
officer;
3. Civil damages against such
officer; and
4. Disciplinary action against the
officer by his
administrative officers [Bautista].