Chapter 10-Searches and Seizures
Article III, 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 mayproduce, 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 bylaw.
Section 3(2) -Any evidence obtained in violation ofthis or the preceding section shall beinadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding.
Scope of Protection
The rights against unreasonable searches and seizures and to the privacy of communication and correspondence are
available to all persons, including aliens, whether accused of crime or not.
-including artificial persons (corporations) but required to open books of accounts for examination by the State for
police power or taxation but thru a valid warrant
Right against seizure- personal , ie not an owner cannot challenge validity of search or seizure
Right to be alone- extends not only to the privacy of one's home but also to his office or business establishment,
including the papers and effects
 Alih v. Castro- They had every opportunity to get a search warrant before making the raid. insist on
arbitrarily forcing their way into the petitioner's premises with all the menace of a military invasion
Requisites of a Valid Warrant:
(1) It must be based upon probable cause.
(2) The probable cause must be determined personally by the judge.
(3) The determination must be made after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce.
(4) It must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
(1) Probable cause- facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance of the warrant that in themselves are
sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely on them and act in pursuance thereof
-consists of a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to
warrant a cautious man in believing accused to be committing the offense or to be guilty of the offense
-consists of a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to
warrant a cautious man in believing accused to be committing the offense or to be guilty of the offense
Probable cause for a search- 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 ; warrant must refer to one specific offense.
 Stonehill v. Diokno- Supreme Court, noting that the warrants "were issued upon applications alleging a
violation of Central Bank circulars, the Tariff and Customs Law, the Internal Revenue Code and the
Revised Penal Code," declared that no specific offense was had been alleged in the applications.
 Asian Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. v. Herrera, the search warrant was annulled because it had been
issued for four separate and distinct offenses, viz., estafa, falsification, tax evasion and insurance fraud,
and in Castro v. Pabalan because it did not refer to one particular offense but to "an illegal traffic in
narcotics and contraband." A similar ruling was made in People v. Court of Appeals, where the warrant
was described as "a scatter-shot warrant" that could refer to "robbery, theft, qualified theft or estafa."
Pita v. Court ofAppeals-copies of a magazine entitled Pinoy Playboy could not
be summarily confiscated in line with an anti-smut campaign of the City of Manila. A search warrant
must have first been issued after the judge shall have been convinced of the existence of probable cause
that the materials sought to be seized were indeed obscene.
(2) Determination of probable cause is to be made "personally by the judge."-
Placer v. Villanueva-several informations were filed by the petitioning prosecutors who had certified that they had
conducted the required preliminary investigations. The judge asked them to submit the supporting affidavits so he
could determine whether or not the corresponding warrants of arrest should be issued, but the prosecutors refused,
arguing they had the authority under PD 911 to determine probable cause.
Court cited Rule 112, Section 6- a judge may issue a warrant of arrest only if he is satisfied from the investigation
conducted by him or the prosecutor that there is probable cause.
Soliven v. Makasiar- does not necessarily mean that the Constitution now requires the judge to personally examine
the complainant and his witnesses in his determination of probable cause of the issuance of the warrants. Instead,
there should be exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of
probable cause
Enrile v. Salazar- it is sufficient that the judge follows established procedure of personally evaluating the report
and the supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor.
Ho v. People- SC distinguished between the objectives of the prosecutor and the judge in determining the existence
of probable cause:
Prosecutor- whether there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty and should be held for trial
Judge- determines if a warrant of arrest should be issued to place the accused in immediate custody so as not to
frustrate the ends of justice
Issuance of Warrant of Arrest- can be by an admin auth. –only for the purpose of carrying out a final finding of a
violation of law and not for the sole purpose of investigation or litigation. (ie. Deportation/ contempt)
Deportation proceedings- (purely admin ie.violation of alien in admission to local state)-does not require probable
cause
Salazar v. Achacoso- the Secretary of Labor, not being a judge, may no longer issue search or arrest warrants.
Hence, the authorities must go through the judicial process. To that extent, we declare Article 38, paragraphs (c),
of the Labor Code, unconstitutional and of no force and effect.
(3) Examination of Applicant- (Rule 126, Section 4 (ROC))- judge, before issuing the search warrant, must
"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 record their sworn
statements together with any affidavits submitted."
Evidence offered by the complainant and his witnesses should be based on their own personal knowledge and not
on mere information or belief.
 Alvarez v. Court of First Instance- SC annulled a search warrant issued on the strength of an affidavit
based on "reliable information" which, according to the affiant, was "correct to the best of his
knowledge and belief."
 Yee Sue Koy v. Almeda,1 where it was shown that the complainant and his witness, of their own personal
knowledge obtained from the personal investigations conducted by them, both declared under oath that the
petitioner was engaged in usurious activities.
 Mata v. Bayona- mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses were not enough to sustain the
issuance of a search warrant. The judge must take depositions in writing and attach them to the record as
these are necessary to enable the court to determine the existence of probable cause.
 Ponsica v. Ignalaga- there had been no searching interrogation of the witnesses as required by the
Constitution.
(4) Particularity of Description- the place to be searched or the persons or things to be seized be described
with such particularity as to enable the person serving the warrant to identify them
-the person sought to be seized should be identified by name, otherwise void
John Doe warrant- generally held invalid, it will satisfy the constitutional requirement if there is some descriptio
personae that will enable the officer to identify the accused.
 People v.Veloso- warrant was valid although issued against John Doe only where it was shown that he
was described as occupying and in control of a building at a specified address.
 Burgos Case- search warrants were also annulled on the further ground that they were general warrants
 because the properties sought to be seized were not described with particularity.
 Nolasco v. Pano-the seizure of personal properties vaguely described and not particularized; definite
guideline is absent to the searching team as to what items might be lawfully seized, thus giving the
officers of the law discretion regarding what articles they should seize
 20th Century Fox Film Corporation v. Court of Appeals- properties sought to be seized were described as
"television sets, video casette recorders, rewinders and tape cleaners" without any specific indication
that they were being used in violating the Anti-Piracy Law; only the articles particularly described in the
warrant can be seized, and no other property can be taken thereunder unless it is prohibited by law.
PROPERTIES SUBJECT TO SEIZURE (Rule 126, Section 2 ROC)
1. property subject of the offense
2. property stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense
3. property used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense
-search and seizure made only for the purpose of obtaining evidence against the accused is unlawful; violates
constitutional search against self-incrimination search and seizure of a man's private papers dence for the purpose
of convicting him of a crime, recovering a penalty, or forfeiting his property, is totally different from the search
and seizure of stolen goods, dutiable articles on which the duties have not been paid, and the like, which rightfully
belong to the custody of the law."
Admissibility of Illegally Seized Evidence- not admissible in any proceedings (Stonehill v. Diokno)
-reversed Moncado v. People's Court (evidence illegally seized is still admissible as long as it is not excluded by
the Rules of Court, on the theory that the criminal should not be allowed to go free merely because "the constable
has blundered)
-property is the subject of litigation, like a prosecution for illegal possession of firearms, it will remain in custodia
legis until the case is terminated.
People v. Zaspa-where the accused did not raise the issue of the admissibility of the evidence against him on the
ground that it had been illegally seized, such omission constituted a waiver of the protection granted by this
section, and the illegally seized evidence could then be admitted against him. Such objection should be made
before arraignment
Warrantless Searches and Seizures- maybe valid
(1) when such person has in fact just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense in
his presence;
(2) 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;
(3) when the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has 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
-warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest may be made only within the permissible area of search, or the
place within the immediate control of the person being arrested
Espano v. Court of Appeals-marijuana seized under the house of the accused after his arrest on
the street was held inadmissible evidence because it was unlawfully obtained.
Terry v. Ohio-"when an officer is justified in believing that the individual
whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is presently dangerous to the officer or to others," he
may conduct a limited protective search for concealed weapons. The purpose of this limited search is not to dis
cover evidence of crime but to allow the officer to pursue his investigation without risk of violence
-no waiver is to be presumed where the person merely submits to the arresting officer in manifestation of his
respect for authority or where he allows entry into his home as a sign of hospitality and politeness.
Callanta v. Villanueva-posting of bail bond constitutes waiver of any irregularity attending the arrest of a person
and estops him from questioning its validity
-"searches and seizures without warrant of vessels and aircraft for violation of customs laws have been the
traditional exception to the constitutional requirement because the vessel can be quickly moved out of the locality
or jurisdiction in which the search must be sought before the warrant could be secured."
-Papa v. Mago- acting on an informer's tip, the police intercepted two trucks that had left the customs area,
searched and found them to be loaded with undeclared cargo, which they confiscated. Rejecting the owner's
demand for its return on the ground that it had been seized without a search warrant, the Supreme Court held that
the police had probable cause to make the warrantless search and seizure.
People v. Court of First Instance of Rizal- there was enough time in this case for the obtention of such warrant.
People v. Que- existence of probable cause which justified the extensive search of appellant's truck even without a
warrant. Thus, the pieces of lumber were lawfully seized and were properly admitted as evidence to prove the guilt
of accused-appellant.
People v. Malmstedt,-the acts of the NARCOM officers in requiringthe accused to open his pouch bag and in
opening one of the wrapped objects found inside said bag (which was discovered to contain hashish) as well as the
two (2) travelling bags containing two (2) teddy bears with hashish stuffed inside them, were prompted by
accused's own attempt to hide his identity byrefusing to present his passport, andbythe in formation received by the
NARCOM that a Caucasian coming from Sagadahad prohibited drugsin his possession.
Malacat v. Court of Appeals- valid warrantless searches
1) customs searches;
2) searches of moving vehicles;
3) seizure of evidence in plain view;
4) consent searches;
5) searches incidental to a lawful arrest;and
6)"stop and frisk."
Valmonte v. De Villa- Supreme Court upheld the establishment of checkpoints by the military where it could
conduct searches and make arrests without warrant; Supreme Court upheld the establishment of checkpoints by the
military where it could conduct searches and make arrests without warrant.; may be considered as a security
measure to enable the NCRDC to pursue its mission of establishing effective territorial defense and maintaining
peace and order for the benefit of the public. Checkpoints may also be regarded as measures to thwart plots to
destabilize the government, in the interest of public security.
-Between the inherent right of the state to protect its existence and promote public welfare and an individual's right
against a warrantless search which is however reasonably conducted, the former should prevail.
Privacy of Communication and Correspondence-the privacy of communication and correspondence shall be
inviolable except upon lawful order ofthe court or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by
law."
[-the privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order ofthe court or
when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law."
Gaanan v. Intermediate Appellate Court?4* it was held that a telephone extension was not among the devices
covered by this law and that the use of that instrument to listen in on a private conversation was not prohibited as a
"tap."