DUE PROCESS is met if the trial is had according to the settled
course of judicial proceedings. Due process of
ARTICLE III
BILL OF RIGHTS
Section 1.
No person shall be deprived of life, liberty,
or property without due process of law, nor
shall any person be denied the equal
protection of the laws.
Section 14. (1)
No person shall be held to answer for a
criminal offense without due process of
law.
Definition, Nature and Scope
Justice Fernando-
Due process means responsiveness to the
supremacy of reason, obedience to the
dictates of justice.
Justice Frankfurter-
Due process is the embodiment of the sporting
idea of fair play.
Due process-
is a guaranty against any arbitrariness on the
part of the Government, whether committed by
the Legislature, the executive or the judiciary,
if the law itself unreasonably deprives a person
of his life or his liberty or his property.
If the enjoyment of hid rights is conditioned on
an unreasonable requirement, due process is
likewise violated.
Purpose of the guaranty
Hurtado v California
Issue:
Whether Hurtado was denied due process by
being tried and found guilty without being
presented or indicted by a grand jury.
Held:
No.
State cannot deprive a person of his property
without due process of law; but this does not
necessarily imply that all trials in the State
courts affecting the property of persons must
be by jury. This requirement of the Constitution
law is process according to the law of the land.
This process in the States is regulated by the
law of State."
Meaning of Life, Liberty and Property
Life
- Includes the right of an individual to his
body in its completeness, free from
dismemberment, and extends to the
use of God given faculties which make
life enjoyable.
Liberty
- Includes the right to exist and the right
to be free from arbitrary personal
restraint or servitude.
- It includes the right of the citizen to be
free to use his faculties in all lawful
ways.
Property
- Is anything that come under the right of
ownership and be the subject of
contract.
- It represents more than the things a
person owns;
- It includes the right to secure, use and
dispose them.
Substantive Due Process
Substantive due process requires the
intrinsic validity of the law in interfering
with the rights of the person to life, liberty
or property.
The inquiry in this regard is not whether or
not the law is being enforced in accordance
with the prescribed manner but whether or
not, to begin with, it is proper exercise of
legislative power.
The means employed must be reasonably
related to the accomplishment of the
purpose and not duly oppressive.
Villegas v. Hiu Chiong Tsai Pao Ho
Issue:
Whether the Ordinance, requiring aliens -
however economically situated - to secure
working permits from the City of Manila at a
uniform fee of P50, is reasonable.
Held:
No.
The ordinance is arbitrary, oppressive and
unreasonable, being applied only to aliens
who are thus, deprived of their rights to life,
liberty and property and therefore, violates the
due process and equal protection clauses of
the Constitution.
Requiring a person, before he can be
employed, to get a permit from the City Mayor
of Manila, who may withhold or refuse it at will
is tantamount to denying him the basic right of
the people in the Philippines to engage in a
means of livelihood.
The ordinance’s purpose is clearly to raise
money under the guise of regulation by
exacting P50 from aliens who have been
cleared for employment.
The amount is unreasonable and excessive
because it fails to consider differences in
situation among aliens required to pay it, i.e.
being casual, permanent, full-time, part-time,
rank-and-file or executive.
Rubi, et. al. vs. Provincial Board of
Mindoro
Issue:
Whether due process was followed in the
restraint of the Manguianes’ liberty, either on
their confinement in reservations and/or
imprisonment due to violation of Section 2145
of the Administrative Code.
Held:
Due process of law means simply that:
1. that there shall be a law prescribed in
harmony with the general powers of the
legislative department of the Government;
2. that this law shall be reasonable in its
operation;
3. third, that it shall be enforced according to
the regular methods of procedure
prescribed; and
4. that it shall be applicable alike to all the
citizens of the state or to all of a class.
What is due process of law depends on
circumstances.
It varies with the subject-matter and
necessities of the situation.
The pledge that no person shall be denied the
equal protection of the laws is not infringed by
a statute which is applicable to all of a class.
The classification must have a reasonable
basis and cannot be purely arbitrary in nature.
Void for Vagueness/ Over breadth
Ople v. Torres
Issue:
Whether the Philippine President can issue an
Administrative Order for the adoption of a
National Computerized Identification
Reference System, independent of a
legislative act.
Held:
AO 308 was beyond the power of the
President to issue.
Administrative Order 308 establishes a system
of identification that is all-encompassing in
scope, affects the life and liberty of every
Filipino citizen and foreign resident, and more
particularly, violates their
right to privacy.
Administrative Order 308 does not merely
implements the Administrative Code of 1987,
but establishes for the first time a National
Computerized Identification Reference
System.
An administrative order is an ordinance issued
by the
President which relates to specific aspects in
the administrative operation of government.
It must be in harmony with the law and should
be for the sole purpose of implementing the
law and carrying out the legislative policy.
 Estrada v. Sandiganbayan
A statute or act may be said to be vague when
it lacks comprehensible standards that men of
common intelligence must necessarily guess
at its meaning and differ in its application.
In such instance, the statute is repugnant to
the Constitution in two (2) respects - it violates
due process for failure to accord persons,
especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice
of what conduct to avoid; and, it leaves law
enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out
its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing
of the Government muscle.
The void-for-vagueness doctrine states that "a
statute which either forbids or requires the
doing of an act in terms so vague that men of
common intelligence must necessarily guess
at its meaning and differ as to its application,
violates the first essential of due process of
law."
The overbreadth doctrine, on the other hand,
decrees that "a governmental purpose may
not be achieved by means which sweep
unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the
area of protected freedoms."
A facial challenge is allowed to be made to a
vague statute and to one which is overbroad
because of possible "chilling effect" upon
protected speech.
The theory is that "[w]hen statutes regulate or
proscribe speech and no readily apparent
construction suggests itself as a vehicle for
rehabilitating the statutes in a single
prosecution, the transcendent value to all
society of constitutionally protected
expression is deemed to justify allowing
attacks on overly broad statutes with no
requirement that the person making the attack
demonstrate that his own conduct could not be
regulated by a statute drawn with narrow
specificity."
The possible harm to society in permitting
some unprotected speech to go unpunished is
outweighed by the possibility that the
protected speech of others may be deterred
and perceived grievances left to fester
because of possible inhibitory effects of overly
broad statutes.
Procedural Due Process (Judicial)
1. Impartial court or tribunal clothed with
judicial power to hear and determine the
matter before it
2. Jurisdiction lawfully acquired over the
person or property of the defendant which
is the subject matter of the proceeding
3. Defendant given an opportunity to be heard
4. Judgment rendered upon lawful hearing.
Publication Requirement
Tanada vs Tuvera
Publication is required, even if their enactment
is “otherwise provided” or effective
immediately.
The term "laws" should refer to all laws and not
only to those of general application, for strictly
speaking all laws relate to the people in
general albeit there are some that do not apply
to them directly.
To be valid, the law must invariably affect the
public interest even if it might be directly
applicable only to one individual, or some of
the people only, and not to the public as a
whole.
Publication requirements applies to:
1. all statutes, including those of local
application and private laws;
2. presidential decrees and executive orders
promulgated by the President in the
exercise of legislative powers whenever
the same are validly delegated by the
legislature or directly conferred by the
Constitution;
3. Administrative rules and regulations for the
purpose of enforcing or implementing
existing law pursuant also to a valid
delegation;
4. Charter of a city notwithstanding that it
applies to only a portion of the national
territory and directly affects only the
inhabitants of that place;

5. Monetary Board circulars to "fill in the
details" of the Central Bank Act which that
body is supposed to enforce.
Publication requirements does not apply
to:
1. interpretative regulations and those merely
internal in nature, i.e. regulating only the
personnel of the administrative agency and
not the public;
2. Letters of Instructions issued by
administrative superiors concerning the
rules or guidelines to be followed by their
subordinates in the performance of their
duties; and
3. instructions of Ministry heads on case
studies.
Further, publication must be in full or it is no
publication at all since its purpose is to inform
the public of the contents of the laws.
It should be published in the Official Gazette
and not elsewhere.
Even if newspapers of general circulation
could better perform the function of
communicating the laws to the people as such
periodicals are more easily available, have a
wider readership, and come out regularly, this
kind of publication is not the one required or
authorized by existing law.
PITC Vs Angeles
The Administrative order under consideration
is one of those issuances which should be
published for its effectivity, since its purpose is
to enforce and implement an existing law
pursuant to a valid delegation.
Republic vs Extelcom
Administrative rules and regulations must be
published if their purpose is to enforce or
implement existing law pursuant to a valid
delegation.
The only exceptions are interpretative
regulations, those merely internal in nature, or
those so-called letters of instructions issued by
administrative superiors concerning the rules
and guidelines to be followed by their
subordinates in the performance of their
duties.
Impartial Court or Tribunal
Tanada vs PAEC
The PAEC Commissioners would be acting
with grave abuse of discretion amounting to
lack of jurisdiction were they to sit in judgment
upon the safety of the plant, absent the
requisite objectivity that must characterize
such an important inquiry because they
already have prejudged the safety of PNPP-1.
The PAEC Commissioners cannot escape
responsibility from the official pamphlets,
which clearly indicate the
prejudgment that PNPP-1 is safe.
The official distribution of the pamphlets
continued when the Commissioners had
already been appointed to their present
positions and even after PAEC had issued its
order dated 26 February 1985 formally
admitting NAPOCOR’s motion for conversion.
Tabuena v. Sandiganbayan
Due process requires no less than the cold
neutrality of an impartial judge. Bolstering this
requirement, we have added that the judge
must not only be impartial but must also
appear to be impartial, to give added
assurance to the parties that his decision will
be just.
The parties are entitled to no less than this, as
a minimum guaranty of due process. Our
courts should refrain from showing any
semblance of one-sided or more or less partial
attitude in order not to create any false
impression in the minds of the litigants.
For obvious reasons, it is the bounden duty of
all to strive for the preservation of the people's
faith in our courts.
Respect for the Constitution is more important
than securing a conviction based on a violation
of the rights of the accused.
 Prejudicial Publicity
Sheppard vs Maxwell
The massive, pervasive, and prejudicial
publicity attending petitioner's prosecution
prevented him from receiving a fair trial
consistent with the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
(a) Though freedom of discussion should be
given the widest range compatible with the
fair and orderly administration of justice, it
must not be allowed to divert a trial from its
purpose of adjudicating controversies
according to legal procedures based on
evidence received only in open court.
(b) Identifiable prejudice to the accused need
not be shown if and even more so in this
case, the totality of the circumstances
raises the probability of prejudice.
(c) The trial court failed to invoke procedures
which would have guaranteed petitioner a
fair trial, such as adopting stricter rules for
use of the courtroom by newsmen as
petitioner's counsel requested, limiting
their number, and more closely supervising
their courtroom conduct.
The court should also have insulated the
witnesses; controlled the release of leads,
information, and gossip to the press by
police officers, witnesses, and counsel;
proscribed extrajudicial statements by any
lawyer, witness, party, or court official
divulging prejudicial matters, and
requested the appropriate city and county
officials to regulate release of information
by their employees.
Webb v. de Leon
Pervasive and prejudicial publicity under
certain circumstances can deprive an accused
of his due process right to fair trial.
Herein, however, nothing in the records that
will prove that the tone and content of the
publicity that attended the investigation of
petitioners fatally infected the fairness and
impartiality of the DOJ Panel.
The ability to dispense impartial justice is an
issue in every trial and in every criminal
prosecution, the judiciary always stands as a
silent accused.
More than convicting the guilty and acquitting
the innocent, the business of the judiciary is to
assure fulfillment of the promise that justice
shall be done and is done, and that is the only
way for the judiciary to get an acquittal from
the bar of public opinion.
People vs Sanchez
Pervasive publicity is not per se prejudicial to
the right of an accused to fair trial.
The mere fact that the trial of Mayor Sanchez,
et. al., was given a day-to-day, gavel-to-gavel
coverage does not by itself prove that publicity
so permeated the mind of the trial judge and
impaired his impartiality.
The right of an accused to a fair trial is not
incompatible to a free press.
Responsible reporting enhances an accused's
right to a fair trial. The press does not simply
publish information about trials but guards
against the miscarriage of justice by subjecting
the police, prosecutors, and judicial processes
to extensive public scrutiny and criticism.
Our judges are learned in the law and trained
to disregard off-court evidence and on camera
performances of parties to a litigation.
Their mere exposure to publications and
publicity stunts does not per se fatally infect
their impartiality. To warrant a finding of
prejudicial publicity, there must be allegation
and proof that the judges have been unduly
influenced by the barrage of publicity.
Notice and Hearing
Summary Dismissal Board v. Torcita
Notification of the charges contemplates that
the respondent be informed of the specific
charges against him.
The absence of specification of the offense for
which he was eventually found guilty is not a
proper observance of due process.
There can be no short-cut to the legal process.
While the definition of the more serious
offense is broad, and almost all encompassing
a finding of guilt for an offense, no matter how
light, for which one is not properly charged and
tried cannot be countenanced without violating
the rudimentary requirements of due process.
People v. Estrada
Issue:
Whether a mental examination of the accused
should be made before the accused may be
subjected to trial.
Held:
The rule barring trial or sentence of an insane
person is for the protection of the accused,
rather than of the public.
It has been held that it is inhuman to require
an accused disabled by act of God to make a
just defense for his life or liberty.
To put a legally incompetent person on trial or
to convict and sentence him is a violation of
the constitutional rights to a fair trial and due
process of law.
Section 12, Rule 116 of the 1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure speaks of a "mental
examination."
An intelligent determination of an accused's
capacity for rational understanding ought to
rest on a deeper and more comprehensive
diagnosis of his mental condition than laymen
can make through observation of his overt
behavior.
Once a medical or psychiatric diagnosis is
made, then can the legal question of
incompetency be determined by the trial court.
By depriving appellant of a mental
examination, the trial court effectively deprived
appellant of a fair trial.
The trial court's negligence was a violation of
the basic requirements of due process; and for
this reason, the proceedings before the said
court must be nullified.
Opportunity to be heard
Marohombsar vs Judge Adiong
In applications for preliminary injunction, the
dual requirement of prior notice and hearing
before injunction may issue has been relaxed
to the point that not all petitions for preliminary
injunction need undergo a trial-type hearing, it
being doctrinal that a formal or trial-type
hearing is not, at all times and in all instances,
essential to due process.
The essence of due process is that a party is
afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard
and to present any evidence he may have in
support of his defense.
In the present case, complainant was able to
move for a reconsideration of the order in
question, hence her right to due process was
not in anyway transgressed.
We have ruled that a party cannot claim that
he has been denied due process when he has
availed of the opportunity to present his
position.
Exception to notice and hearing
requirements
Philcomsat vs Alcuaz
The NTC, in the exercise of its rate-fixing
power, is limited by the requirements of public
safety, public interest, reasonable feasibility
and reasonable rates, which conjointly more
than satisfy the requirements of a valid
delegation of legislative power.
The NTC order violates procedural due
process because it was issued motu proprio,
without notice to PHILCOMSAT and without
the benefit of a hearing.
Said order was based merely on an "initial
evaluation," which is a unilateral evaluation,
but had PHILCOMSAT been given an
opportunity to present its side before the order
in question was issued, the confiscatory nature
of the rate reduction and the consequent
deterioration of the public service could have
been shown and demonstrated to NTC.
 Suntay v. People
Due process does not necessarily mean or
require a hearing. When discretion is
exercised by an officer vested with it upon an
undisputed fact, such as the filing of a serious
criminal charge against the passport holder,
hearing may be dispensed with by such officer
as a prerequisite to the cancellation of his
passport; lack of such hearing does not violate
the due process of law clause of the
Constitution; and the exercise of the discretion
vested in him cannot be deemed whimsical
and capricious because of the absence of
such hearing.
If hearing should always be held in order to
comply with the due process of law clause of
the Constitution, then a writ of preliminary
injunction issued ex parte would be violative of
the said clause.
Hearing would have been proper and
necessary if the reason for the withdrawal or
cancellation of the passport were not clear but
doubtful.
But where the holder of a passport is facing a
criminal charge in our courts and left the
country to evade criminal prosecution, the
Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in the exercise of
his discretion (Section 25, EO 1, S. 1946, 42
OG 1400) to revoke a passport already issued,
cannot be held to have acted whimsically or
capriciously in withdrawing and cancelling
such passport.
Administrative Due Process
Ang Tibay vs CIR
There are cardinal primary rights which must
be respected even in proceedings of this
character, to wit:
1. Right to a hearing, which includes the right
to present one’s case and submit evidence
in support thereof;
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence
presented;
3. The decision must have something to
support itself;
4. The evidence must be substantial; and
substantial evidence means such a
reasonable mind would accept as
adequate to support a finding or
conclusion;
5. The decision must be based on the
evidence presented at the hearing or at
least contained in the record and disclosed
to the parties affected;
6. The tribunal or body or any of its judges
must act on its or his own independent
consideration of the law and facts of the
controversy, and not simply accept the
views of a subordinate in arriving at a
decision;
7. The tribunal or body shall, in all
controversial questions, render its decision
in such a manner that the parties to the
preceding can know the various issues
involved and the reason for the decision
rendered.
Alcuaz v. PSBA
Accordingly, the minimum standards laid down
by the Court to meet the demands of
procedural due process
are:
1. the students must be informed in writing of
the nature and cause of any accusation
against them;
2. they shall have the right to answer the
charges against them, with the assistance
of counsel, if desired:
3. they shall be informed of the evidence
against them;
4. they shall have the right to adduce
evidence in their own behalf; and
5. the evidence must be duly considered by
the investigating committee or official
designated by the school authorities to
hear and decide the case.
 EQUAL PROTECTION
Political, Economic and Social Equality
ARTICLE XIII
SOCIAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Section 1.
The Congress shall give highest priority to
the enactment of measures that protect
and enhance the right of all the people to
human dignity, reduce social, economic,
and political inequalities, and remove
cultural inequities by equitably diffusing
wealth and political power for the common
good.
To this end, the State shall regulate the
acquisition, ownership, use, and
disposition of property and its increments.
Section 2.
The promotion of social justice shall
include the commitment to create
economic opportunities based on freedom
of initiative and self-reliance.
LABOR
Section 3.
The State shall afford full protection to
labor, local and overseas, organized and
unorganized, and promote full employment
and equality of employment opportunities
for all.
It shall guarantee the rights of all workers
to self-organization, collective bargaining
and negotiations, and peaceful concerted
activities, including the right to strike in
accordance with law.
They shall be entitled to security of tenure,
humane conditions of work, and a living
wage.
They shall also participate in policy and
decision-making processes affecting their
rights and benefits as may be provided by
law.
The State shall promote the principle of
shared responsibility between workers and
employers and the preferential use of
voluntary modes in settling disputes,
including conciliation, and shall enforce
their mutual compliance therewith to foster
industrial peace.
The State shall regulate the relations
between workers and employers,
recognizing the right of labor to its just
share in the fruits of production and the
right of enterprises to reasonable returns
on investments, and to expansion and
growth.
ARTICLE XII
National Economy and Patrimony
Section 10.
The Congress shall, upon recommendation
of the economic and planning agency,
when the national interest dictates, reserve
to citizens of the Philippines or to
corporations or associations at least sixty
per centum of whose capital is owned by
such citizens, or such higher percentage
as Congress may prescribe, certain areas
of investments. The Congress shall enact
measures that will encourage the formation
and operation of enterprises whose capital
is wholly owned by Filipinos.
In the grant of rights, privileges, and
concessions covering the national
economy and patrimony, the State shall
give preference to qualified Filipinos.
The State shall regulate and exercise
authority over foreign investments within
its national jurisdiction and in accordance
with its national goals and priorities.
Section 2. Par. 2
The State shall protect the nation’s marine
wealth in its archipelagic waters, territorial
sea, and exclusive economic zone, and
reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively
to Filipino citizens.
ARTICLE II
Declaration of Principles and State
Policies
Section 11.
The State values the dignity of every
human person and guarantees full respect
for human rights.
Section 14.
The State recognizes the role of women in
nation-building, and shall ensure the
fundamental equality before the law of
women and men.
Section 26.
The State shall guarantee equal access to
opportunities for public service, and
prohibit political dynasties as may be
defined by law
4. they apply equally to all members of the
same class.
Equal protection simply requires that all
persons or things similarly situated should be
treated alike, both as to rights conferred and
responsibilities imposed.
Similar subjects, in other words, should not be
treated differently, so as to give undue favor to
some and unjustly discriminate against others.

ARTICLE VIII The equal protection clause does not require

Judicial Department the universal application of the laws on all
persons or things without distinction.
Section 5 (5).
Promulgate rules concerning the What the clause requires is equality among
protection and enforcement of equals as determined according to a valid
constitutional rights, pleading, practice, classification. By classification is meant the
and procedure in all courts, the admission grouping of persons or things similar to each
to the practice of law, the Integrated Bar, other in certain particulars and different from
and legal assistance to the all others in these same particulars.
underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a
simplified and inexpensive procedure for The Non Impairment Clause
the speedy disposition of cases, shall be
uniform for all courts of the same grade, Section 10.
and shall not diminish, increase, or modify No law impairing the obligation of
substantive rights. Rules of procedure of contracts shall be passed.
special courts and quasi-judicial bodies
shall remain effective unless disapproved Purpose
by the Supreme Court. To safeguard the integrity of valid
contractual agreement against
ARTICLE IX-C unwarranted interference by the State.
Constitutional Commissions
As a rule, they should be respected by the
Section 10. legislature and not tampered with by
Bona fide candidates for any public office subsequent laws that will change the
shall be free from any form of harassment intention of the parties or modify their
and discrimination. rights and obligations.

Sexual Discrimination The will of the obligor and the obligee must
be observed; the obligation of their
PASEI v. Drilon contract must not be impaired.

‘Equality before the law" under the Limitations:

Constitution does not import a perfect identity
of rights among all men and women. It admits
of classifications, provided that
1. such classifications rest on substantial
distinctions;
2. they are germane to the purposes of the
law;
3. they are not confined to existing conditions;
and
1. A contract valid at the time of its
execution may be legally modified or
even completely invalidated by a
subsequent law.
2. Strict construction. Charters,
franchises and licenses granted by the
Government are strictly construed
against the grantees.

3. If a law is a proper exercise of the police
power, it will prevail over the contract.
This is because public welfare is
superior to private rights (PNB v.
Remigio, G.R. 78508, March 21, 1995).
Into each contract are read the
provisions of existing law and, always,
a reservation of the police power as
long as the agreement deals with a
matter affecting the public welfare.
4. Eminent domain and taxation may also
validly limit the impairment clause.
ARREST, SEARCHED AND SEIZURES
Section 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.
Section 3.
(1) The privacy of communication and
correspondence shall be inviolable except
upon lawful order of the court, or when
public safety or order requires otherwise
as prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of
this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.
Purpose and Importance of the guaranty
Alvero vs Dizon
The purpose of the constitutional provisions
against unlawful searches and seizures is to
prevent violations of private security in person
and property, and unlawful invasions of the
sanctity of the home, by officers of the law
acting under legislative or judicial sanction,
and to give remedy against such usurpations
when attempted.
But it does not prohibit the Government from
taking advantage of unlawful searches made
by a private person or under authority of state
law.
To whom Directed?
People vs Andre Marti
The constitutional proscription against
unlawful searches and seizures therefore
applies as a restraint directed only against the
government and its agencies
tasked with the enforcement of the law.
Thus, it could only be invoked against the
State to whom the restraint against arbitrary
and unreasonable exercise of power is
imposed.
If the search is made upon the request of law
enforcers, a warrant must generally be first
secured if it is to pass the test of
constitutionality.
However, if the search is made at the behest
or initiative of the proprietor of a private
establishment for its own and private
purposes, as in the case at bar, and without
the intervention of police authorities, the right
against unreasonable search and seizure
cannot be invoked for only the act of private
individual, not the law enforcers, is involved.
In sum, the protection against unreasonable
searches and seizures cannot be extended to
acts committed by private individuals so as to
bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful
intrusion by the government.
Who may invoke the right?
Issue:
Whether the corporation has the right to
contest the legality of the seizure of
documents from its office.
Held:
The legality of a seizure can be contested only
by the party whose rights have been impaired
thereby, and that the objection to an unlawful
search and seizure is purely personal and
cannot be availed of by third parties.

The Supreme Court impliedly recognized the
right of a corporation to object against
unreasonable searches and seizures; holding
that the corporations have their respective
personalities, separate and distinct from the
personality of the corporate officers,
regardless of the amount of shares of stock or
the interest of each of them in said
corporations, whatever, the offices they hold
therein may be; and that the corporate officers
therefore may not validly object to the use in
evidence against them of the documents,
papers and things seized from the offices and
premises of the corporations, since the right to
object to the admission of said papers in
evidence belongs exclusively to the
corporations, to whom the seized effects
belong, and may not be invoked by the
corporate officers in proceedings against them
in their individual capacity.
Stonehill vs. Diokno
No warrant shall issue but upon probable
cause, to be determined by the judge in the
manner set forth in said provision; and the
warrant shall particularly describe the things to
be seized.
Burgos v. Chief of Staff, AFP
Section 3 provides that no search warrant or
warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined by the judge,
or such other responsible officer as may be
authorized by law, 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.
Probable cause for a search is defined as such
facts and circumstances which would lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to
believe that an offense has been committed
and that the objects sought in connection with
the offense are in the place sought to be
searched.
In mandating that "no warrant shall issue
except upon probable cause to be determined
by the judge, after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce”; the Constitution
requires no less than personal knowledge by
the complainant or his witnesses of the facts
upon which the issuance of a search warrant
may be justified.
People vs. Molina
Search and seizure may be made without a
warrant and the evidence obtained therefrom
may be admissible in the following instances:
1. search incident to a lawful arrest;
2. search of a moving motor vehicle;
3. search in violation of customs
laws;
4. seizure of evidence in plain view;
5. when the accused himself waives his right
against unreasonable searches and
seizures; and
6. stop and frisk situations (Terry search)
The first exception (search incidental to a
lawful arrest) includes a valid warrantless
search and seizure pursuant to an equally
valid warrantless arrest which must precede
the search.
Still, the law requires that there be first a lawful
arrest
before a search can be made — the process
cannot be reversed
Conditions for issuance of search warrant
1. must be issued by a judge upon probable
cause;
2. probable cause must be determined by the
judge himself;
3. in the determination of probable cause, the
judge must examine, under oath or
affirmation, the complainant and his
witnesses; and
4. the warrant issued must particularly
describe the place to be searched and
persons or things to be seized
Rule 112, Sec. 6. When warrant of arrest
may issue.—
(a) By the Regional Trial Court.-- Upon the
filing of an information, the Regional Trial
Court may issue a warrant for the arrest of
the accused.
(b) By the Municipal Trial Court.-- If the
municipal trial judge conducting the
preliminary investigation is satisfied after
an examination in writing and under oath
of the complainant and his witnesses in the
form of searching questions and answers,
that a probable cause exists and that there
is a necessity of placing the respondent
under immediate custody in order not to
frustrate the ends of justice, he shall issue
a warrant of arrest. (Rules of Court.)
Rule 126, Sec. 4. Examination of
complainant; record.—
The judge must, before issuing the warrant,
personally examine in the form of searching
questions and answers, in writing and under
oath the complainant and any witnesses he
may produce on facts personally known to
them and attach to the records their sworn
statements together with any affidavits
submitted.
Alvarez vs. Court of First Instance of
Tayabas
Section 1, paragraph 3, of Article III of the
Constitution and Section 97 of General Orders
58 require that there be not only probable
cause before the issuance of a search warrant
but that the search warrant must be based
upon an application supported by oath of the
applicant and the witnesses he may produce.
In its broadest sense, an oath includes any
form of attestation by which a party signifies
that he is bound in conscience to perform an
act faithfully and truthfully; and it is sometimes
defined as an outward pledge given by the
person taking it that his attestation or promise
is made under an immediate sense of his
responsibility to God.
The oath required must refer to the truth of the
facts within the personal knowledge of the
petitioner or his witnesses, because the
purpose thereof is to convince the committing
magistrate, not the individual making the
affidavit and seeking the issuance of the
warrant, of the existence of probable cause.
The true test of sufficiency of an affidavit to
warrant issuance of a search warrant is
whether it has been drawn in such a manner
that perjury could be charged thereon and
affiant be held liable for damages caused.
Further, it is the practice in this jurisdiction to
attach the affidavit of at least the applicant or
complainant to the application.
The purpose of both in requiring the
presentation of depositions is nothing more
than to satisfy the committing magistrate of the
existence of probable cause.
Therefore, if the affidavit of the applicant or
complainant is sufficient, the judge may
dispense with that of other witnesses.
Prudente vs Dayrit
The "probable cause" for a valid search
warrant, has been defined "as such facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed, and that objects
sought in connection with the offense are in
the place sought to be searched."
This probable cause must be shown to be
within the personal knowledge of the
complainant or the witnesses he may produce
and not based on mere hearsay.
Thus, for a valid search warrant to issue, there
must be probable cause, which is 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.
The probable cause must be in connection
with one specific offense, and the judge must,
before issuing the warrant, personally
examine in the form of searching questions
and answers, in writing and under oath, the
complainant and any witness he may produce,
on facts personally known to them and attach
to the record their sworn statements together
with any affidavits submitted.
People vs Musa
Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest
authorizes the arresting officer to make a
search upon the person of the person
arrested.
An officer making an arrest may take from the
person arrested and 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 or of
escaping, or which may be used as evidence
in the trial of the cause.
Hence, in a buy-bust operation conducted to
entrap a drug-pusher, the law enforcement
agents may seize the marked money found on
the person of the pusher immediately after the
arrest even without arrest and search
warrants.
The warrantless search and seizure, as an
incident to a suspect's lawful arrest, may
extend beyond the person of the one arrested
to include the premises or surroundings under
his immediate control.
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.
When the discovery of the evidence did not
constitute a search, but where the officer
merely saw what was placed before him in full
view, the warrantless seizure of the object was
legal on the basis of the "plain view" doctrine
and upheld the admissibility of said evidence.
The "plain view" doctrine, however, may not be
used to launch unbridled searches and
indiscriminate seizures nor to extend a general
exploratory search made solely to find
evidence of defendant's guilt.
The "plain view" doctrine is usually applied
where a police officer is not searching for
evidence against the accused, but
nonetheless inadvertently comes across an
incriminating object.
People vs. Valdez
The Constitution lays down the general rule
that a search and seizure must be carried on
the strength of
a judicial warrant. Otherwise, the search and
seizure is deemed "unreasonable."
Evidence procured on the
occasion of an unreasonable search and
seizure is deemed tainted for being the
proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree and should
be excluded.
Such evidence shall be inadmissible in
evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.
For the plain view doctrine to apply, the
following elements must be present:
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; and
c. the evidence must be immediately
apparent; and
d. plain view justified mere seizure of
evidence without further search.
WARRANTLESS ARREST
People vs Correa
When one voluntarily submits to a search or
consents to have it made on his person or
premises, he is precluded from later
complaining thereof The right to be secure
from unreasonable search may, like every
right, be waived and such waiver may be made
either expressly or impliedly."
Further, they effectively waived their
constitutional right against the search and
seizure by their voluntary submission to the
jurisdiction of the trial court, when they entered
a plea of not guilty upon arraignment and by
participating in the trial.
People vs Damaso
The constitutional immunity from
unreasonable searches and seizures, being a
personal one cannot he waived by anyone
except the person whose rights are invaded or
one who is expressly authorized to do so in his
or her .
Further, to constitute a valid waiver, it must be
shown that:
c. When the person to be arrested is a
1. the right exists;
2. the person involved had knowledge, actual
or constructive, of the existence of such a
right; and
3. the person had an actual intention to
relinquish the right.
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
prisoner who escaped from a 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

Umil vs Ramos

Subversion being a continuing offense, the

arrest of Rolando Dural without warrant is
justified as it can be said that he was
committing an offense when arrested.

The crimes of rebellion, subversion,

conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes,
and crimes or offenses committed in
furtherance thereof or in connection therewith
constitute direct assaults against the State and
are in the nature of continuing crimes.

The arrest of persons involved in the rebellion

whether as its fighting armed elements, or for
committing non-violent acts but in furtherance
of the rebellion, is more an act of capturing
them in the course of an armed conflict, to
quell the rebellion, than for the purpose of
immediately prosecuting them in court for a
statutory offense.

The arrest, therefore, need not follow the usual

procedure in the prosecution of offenses which
requires the determination by a judge of the
existence of probable cause before the
issuance of a judicial warrant of arrest and the
granting of bail if the offense is bailable.

Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal

Procedure provides for the instances where
arrest without warrant is considered lawful.

The rule states that "A peace officer or private

person may, without warrant, arrest a person:

a. When in his presence, the person to be

arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense;