as a security measure to enable the NCRDC to pursue its
Valmonte v. De Villa, G.R. No. 83988 September 29, 1989
(173 SCRA 211) – CHECKPOINT CASE
PADILLA, J.:
FACTS:
 On 20 January 1987, the National Capital Region
District Command (NCRDC) was activated pursuant
to Letter of Instruction 02/87 of the Philippine General
Headquarters, AFP, with the mission of conducting
security operations within its area of responsibility
and peripheral areas, for the purpose of establishing
an effective territorial defense, maintaining peace and
order, and providing an atmosphere conducive to the
social, economic and political development of the
National Capital Region.  state to protect its existence and promote public welfare
 As part of its duty to maintain peace and order, the
NCRDC installed checkpoints in various parts of
Valenzuela, Metro Manila.  should prevail.
 Petitioners Atty. Ricardo Valmonte, who is a resident
of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, and the Union of
Lawyers and Advocates For People’s Rights (ULAP)
sought the declaration of checkpoints in Valenzuela,
Metro Manila and elsewhere as unconstitutional. In
the alternative, they prayed that respondents Renato
De Villa and the National Capital Region District
Command (NCRDC) be directed to formulate
guidelines in the implementation of checkpoints for
the protection of the people.
 Petitioners contended that the checkpoints gave the
respondents blanket authority to make searches and
seizures without search warrant or court order in
violation of the Constitution.
ISSUE:
Do the military and police checkpoints violate the right
of the people against unreasonable search and seizures?
HELD:
[The Court, voting 13-2, DISMISSED the petition.]
NO,  military and police checkpoints DO NOT
violate the right of the people against unreasonable
search and seizures.
xxx. Not all searches and seizures are prohibited.
Those which are reasonable are not forbidden. A
reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed
formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of
each case.
Where, for example, the officer merely draws aside
the curtain of a vacant vehicle which is parked on the public
fair grounds, or simply looks into a vehicle, or flashes a light
therein, these do not constitute unreasonable search.
The setting up of the questioned checkpoints in
Valenzuela (and probably in other areas) may be considered
1 CONSTI LAW 2 ARREST,SEARCH,SEIZURE DIGEST
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.
In this connection, the Court may take judicial notice
of the shift to urban centers and their suburbs of the
insurgency movement, so clearly reflected in the increased
killings in cities of police and military men by NPA “sparrow
units,” not to mention the abundance of unlicensed firearms
and the alarming rise in lawlessness and violence in such
urban centers, not all of which are reported in media, most
likely brought about by deteriorating economic conditions –
which all sum up to what one can rightly consider, at the very
least, as abnormal times. Between the inherent right of the
and an individual's right against a warrantless search
which is however reasonably conducted, the former
True, the manning of checkpoints by the military is
susceptible of abuse by the men in uniform, in the same
manner that all governmental power is susceptible of abuse.
But, at the cost of occasional inconvenience, discomfort
and even irritation to the citizen, the checkpoints during
these abnormal times, when conducted within reasonable
limits, are part of the price we pay for an orderly society
and a peaceful community.
Finally, on 17 July 1988, military and police checkpoints in
Metro Manila were temporarily lifted and a review and
refinement of the rules in the conduct of the police and
military manning the checkpoints was ordered by the National
Capital Regional Command Chief and the Metropolitan Police
Director. 
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
DISSENTING OPINION:
Cruz - The bland declaration that individual rights must yield
to the demands of national security ignores the fact that the
Bill of Rights was intended precisely to limit the authority of
the State even if asserted on the ground of national security.
What is worse is that the searches and seizures are
peremptorily pronounced to be reasonable even without proof
of probable cause and much less the required warrant.
Sarmiento - the absence alone of a search warrant, as I
have averred, makes checkpoint searches unreasonable, and
by itself, subject to constitutional challenges. (Supra.) As it is,
"checkpoints", have become "search warrants" unto
themselves a roving one at that.
RHEYNE ROBLEDO
Guanzon vs de Villa 181 SCRA 623 – ZONING/ HUMAN
RIGHTS CASE
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:
FACTS:
 This is a petition for prohibition with preliminary
injunction to prohibit the military and police
officers represented by public respondents from
conducting "Areal Target Zonings" or "Saturation
Drives" in Metro Manila.
 The 41 petitioners alleged that the 12 "saturation
drive" or "aerial target zoning" that were conducted in
their place (Tondo Manila) were unconstitutional.
 They alleged that the following were committed:
1. there is no specific target house to
besearch and that there is no search warrant or
warrant of arrest served. Most of the policemen are in
their civilian clothes and without nameplates or
identification cards.
2. The residents were rudely rouse from their sleep
by banging on the walls and windows of their houses.
The residents were at the point of high-powered guns
and herded like cows.
3. Men were ordered to strip down to their briefs for
the police to examine their tattoo marks. The
residents complained that their homes were
ransacked, tossing their belongings and destroying
their valuables.
4. Raiders force their way and search the houses
without civilian witnesses.
5. Raiders ransack their homes and damaged due to
illegal effort to fish for incriminating evidences.
6. Some of their money and valuables had
disappeared after the operation.
7. The residents who respond to illegal intrusions
were arrested without warrant
8.Arrested persons are released after the expiration
of the period for legal detention
9. Raiders almost blandish their weapons and point
them at the residents.
10.There are also reported incidents of maulings,
spot-beatings and maltreatment.
11. Those who were detained also suffered mental
and physical torture to extract confessions and
tactical information.
 The respondents said that such accusations were all
lies. Respondents contends that the Constitution grants to
government the power to seek and cripple subversive
movements for the maintenance of peace in the state.
The aerial target zoning were intended to flush out
subversives and criminal elements coddled by the
communities were the said drives were conducted. They
said that they have intelligently and carefully planned
months ahead for the actual operation and that local and
foreign media joined the operation to witness and record
such event.
2 CONSTI LAW 2 ARREST,SEARCH,SEIZURE DIGEST
ISSUE: 
Whether the saturation drive committed consisted of
violation of human rights?
HELD:
NO.
Not one of the several thousand persons treated in the illegal
and inhuman manner described by the petitioners appears as
a petitioner or has come before a trial court to present the
kind of evidence admissible in courts of justice.
None of those arrested has apparently been charged and
none of those affected has apparently complained.
Where there is large scale mutiny or actual rebellion, the
police or military may go in force to the combat areas,
enter affected residences or buildings, round up
suspected rebels and otherwise quell the mutiny or
rebellion without having to secure search warrants and
without violating the Bill of Rights.
If our policy makers sustain the contention of the military and
the police that occasional saturation drives are essential to
maintain the stability of government and to insure peace and
order, clear policy guidelines on the behavior of soldiers and
policemen must not only be evolved, they should also be
enforced. A method of pinpointing human rights abuses and
identifying violators is necessary.
In the meantime and in the face of a prima facie showing that
some abuses were probably committed and could be
committed during future police actions, we have to temporarily
restrain the alleged banging on walls, the kicking in of doors,
the herding of half-naked men to assembly areas for
examination of tattoo marks, the violation of residences even
if these are humble shanties of squatters, and the other
alleged acts which are shocking to the conscience.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby REMANDED to the
Regional Trial Courts of Manila, Malabon, and Pasay City
where the petitioners may present evidence supporting their
allegations and where specific erring parties may be
pinpointed and prosecuted.
In the meantime, the acts violative of human rights
alleged by the petitioners as committed during the police
actions are ENJOINED until such time as permanent rules
to govern such actions are promulgated.
DISSENTING OPINION:
Cruz - Saturation drives are not among the accepted
instances when a search or an arrest may be made without
warrant.
I submit that this Court should instead declare categorically
and emphatically that these saturation drives are violative of
human rights and individual liberty and so should be
stopped immediately.
RHEYNE ROBLEDO
AURELIO S. ALVERO vs ARSENIO P. DIZON, et al.,
G.R. No. L-342      May 4, 1946 – TREASON/ADMISSION
OF EVIDENCE CASE
DE JOYA, J.:
FACTS:
 This is a petition for certiorari with injunction originally
filed in this court.
 The petitioner has been accused of treason; that at
the hearing on his petition for bail, the prosecution
presented, as part of its evidence, certain documents
which had been allegedly seized by soldiers of the United
States Army, accompanied by Filipino Guerrillas in the
petitioner’s house.
 that petitioner immediately objected to the
presentation of said documents, and called the attention
of the respondent judges to the fact that he had filed a
petition, in which he protested against the procedure of
the government in the seizure of said documents, and
asked for their return to the petitioner; that the
respondents permitted the prosecution to present said
documents as evidence, which were considered, upon
the termination of the presentation of the evidence for
both parties, in denying said petition for bail.
 The Petitioner further contends that the seized
documents should be returned as it obtained by means of
force and intimidation or through coercion, those are not
his personal papers but part of the files of the New
Leader’s Association, which was proven to be an
organization created for the purpose of collaborating with
the enemy.
 Lastly, the presentation of the seized documents in
the trial is tantamount to compelling him to testify against
himself, in violation of his constitutional rights.
ISSUE:
 
The Petitioner consented to the presentation of the seized
documents, as part of the evidence for the prosecution, at the
hearing in his petition for bail and at the trial of the case on
the merits, without having insisted that the question of the
alleged illegality of the search and seizure of said papers
and documents should first have been directly litigated
and established by a motion.
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.
(Adams vs. New York, 192 U. S., 585.) But it does not
prohibit the Federal Government from taking advantage
of unlawful searches made by a private person or under
authority of state law. (Weeks vs. United States, 232 U. S.,
383; Burdeau vs. McDowell, 256 U. S., 465.)
In view of the foregoing, it is evident that the petition
for certiorari with injunction, filed in this case, is absolutely
without merit, and it is, therefore, hereby denied and
dismissed with costs.
CONCURING OPINION:
Perfecto- There is no reason, either legal or moral, for
depriving an accused of treason of the benefits of
constitutional guarantees. Even those convicted of the most
heinous crimes remain under the pale of the Constitution, and
cannot be punished, including those sentenced to death,
except in accordance with the due process clause of our
fundamental law.

Whether or not the “seized” documents are legal and should

be admitted as evidence in the trial court?
 
HELD:
No. The petition for Certiorari with Injunction is
absolutely no merit.
 
The right of the officer and men of the United States
Army to arrest the petitioner as a collaborationist
suspect, and to seize his personal papers is
unquestionable. Also, proclamation of General Douglas
McArthur, as Commander in Chief of the United States of
Army, declaring his purpose to remove certain citizens of the
Philippines, who had voluntarily given aid and comfort to the
enemy, in violation of the allegiance.

Important exception to the necessity for a Search

Warrant is the right of search and seizure as an incident
to a lawful arrest. A lawful arrest may be made either while a
crime is being committed or after its commission. The right to
search includes in both instances that of searching the person
of him who is arrested, in order to find and seize things
arrested with the crime as its fruits as the means by which it
was committed.

3 CONSTI LAW 2 ARREST,SEARCH,SEIZURE DIGEST RHEYNE ROBLEDO

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANDRE MARTI
G.R. No. 81561 January 18, 1991 – DRUG PACKAGE
CASE
BIDIN, J.:
FACTS:
 This is an appeal from a decision * rendered by the
Special Criminal Court of Manila (Regional Trial
Court, Branch XLIX) convicting accused-appellant of
violation of Section 21 (b), Article IV in relation to
Section 4, Article 11 and Section 2 (e) (i), Article 1 of
Republic Act 6425, as amended, otherwise known as
the Dangerous Drugs Act.
 August 14, 1957, the appellant and his common-law
wife, Sherly Reyes, went to the booth of the “Manila
Packing and Export Forwarders” carrying Four (4)
wrapped packages. The appellant informed Anita
Reyes that he was sending the packages to a friend
in Zurich, Switzerland. Anita Reyes asked if she could
examine and inspect the packages. She refused and
assures her that the packages simply contained
books, cigars, and gloves.
 Before the delivery of appellant’s box to the Bureau of
Customs and Bureau of Posts, Mr. Job Reyes
(Proprietor), following the standard operating
procedure, opened the boxes for final inspection. A
peculiar odor emitted from the box and that the
gloves contain dried leaves. He prepared a letter and
reported to the NBI and requesting a laboratory
examinations. The dried marijuana leaves were found
to have contained inside the cellophane wrappers.
 In the presence of the NBI agents, Job Reyes opened
the suspicious package and found dried-marijuana
leaves inside. A case was filed against Andre Marti in
violation of R.A. 6425 and was found guilty by the
court a quo.
 Appellant contended that the evidence had been
obtained in violation of constitutional rights against
unreasonable search and seizure and privacy of
communication.
ISSUE:
May an act of a private individual without the
intervention and participation of the State, and allegedly in
violation of appellant’s constitutional rights, be invoked
against the State?
HELD:
NO.
The Bill of Rights embodied in the Constitution is not
meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals
finds support in the deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission. Commissioner Bernas in his sponsorship
speech in the Bill of Rights answers the query which he
himself posed, as follows:
“First, the general reflections. The protection of
fundamental liberties in the essence of constitutional
democracy. Protection against whom? Protection
against the state.  The Bill of Rights governs the
4 CONSTI LAW 2 ARREST,SEARCH,SEIZURE DIGEST
relationship between the individual and the state.  Its
concern is not the relation between individuals, between
a private individual and other individuals. What the Bill
of Rights does is to declare some forbidden zones in the
private sphere inaccessible to any power holder.”
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.V 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.
 It was the proprietor of the forwarding agency who made
search/inspection of the packages, not the NBI, as appellant
would have the Court believe. Said inspection was
reasonable and a standard operating procedure on the
part of the proprietor as a precautionary measure before
delivery of packages to the Bureau of Customs or the
Bureau of Posts. Second, the mere presence of the NBI
agents did not convert the reasonable search the proprietor
effected into a warrantless search and seizure proscribed by
the Constitution. Merely to observe and look at that which is
in plain sight is not a search.
Corolarilly, alleged violations against unreasonable
search and seizure may only be invoked against the
State by an individual unjustly traduced by the exercise
of sovereign authority. To agree with appellant that an act
of a private individual in violation of the Bill of Rights should
also be construed as an act of the State would result in
serious legal complications and an absurd interpretation of
the constitution.
WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction finding
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
charged is hereby AFFIRMED.
RHEYNE ROBLEDO
Bache & Co. Inc. et al vs BIR Commissioner Vivencio
Ruiz et al GR. L-32409, FEBRUARY 27, 1971 – SEARCH
WARRANT / TAX ASSESMENT CASE
VILLAMOR, J.:
FACTS:
 This is an original action of certiorari, prohibition and
mandamus, with prayer for a writ of preliminary
mandatory and prohibitory injunction.
 On 24 Feb 1970, Commissioner Vera of Internal
Revenue, wrote a letter addressed to J Ruiz
requesting the issuance of a search warrant against
petitioners for violation of Sec 46(a) of the NIRC, in
relation to all other pertinent provisions thereof,
particularly Sects 53, 72, 73, 208 and 209, and
authorizing Revenue Examiner de Leon make and
file the application for search warrant which was
attached to the letter.
 The next day, de Leon and his witnesses went to
CFI Rizal to obtain the search warrant. At that time J
Ruiz was hearing a certain case; so, by means of a
note, he instructed his Deputy Clerk of Court to take
the depositions of De Leon and Logronio.
 After the session had adjourned, J Ruiz was
informed that the depositions had already been
taken. The stenographer read to him her
stenographic notes; and thereafter, J Ruiz asked
respondent Logronio to take the oath and warned
him that if his deposition was found to be false and
without legal basis, he could be charged for perjury.
J  Ruiz signed de Leon’s application
for search warrant and Logronio’s deposition.
 The search was subsequently conducted.
ISSUE:  seizure or when the things described are limited to those
Whether or not there had been a valid search warrant.
HELD:  The case pointed out that one of the tests to determine
The SC ruled in favor of Bache on three grounds.
1.  J Ruiz failed to personally examine the complainant
and his witness.
Personal examination by the judge of the complainant and his
witnesses is necessary to enable him to determine the
existence or non-existence of a probable cause.
The participation of respondent Judge in the proceedings
which led to the issuance of Search Warrant 2-M-70 was
thus limited to listening to the stenographer’s readings of
her notes to a few words of warning against the
commission of perjury, and to administering the oath to
the complainant and his witness. This cannot be
considered a personal examination. If there was an
examination at all of the complainant and his witness, it
was one conducted by the Deputy Clerk of Court
2.  The search warrant was issued for more than one
specific offense.
5 CONSTI LAW 2 ARREST,SEARCH,SEIZURE DIGEST
The search warrant in question was issued for at least four
distinct offenses under the Tax Code. As ruled
in Stonehill “Such is the seriousness of the irregularities
committed in connection with the disputed search warrants,
that this Court deemed it fit to amend Section 3 of Rule 122 of
the former Rules of Court that ‘a searchwarrant shall not
issue but upon probable cause in connection with one specific
offense.’ Not satisfied with this qualification, the Court added
thereto a paragraph, directing that ‘no search warrant shall
issue for more than one specific offense
.
3.  The search warrant does not particularly describe the
things to be seized.
The documents, papers and effects sought to be seized are
described in the Search Warrant:
“Unregistered and private books of accounts (ledgers,
journals, columnars, receipts and disbursements books,
customers ledgers); receipts for payments received;
certificates of stocks and securities; contracts, promissory
notes and deeds of sale; telex and coded messages;
business communications, accounting and business records;
checks and check stubs; records of bank deposits and
withdrawals; and records of foreign remittances, covering the
years 1966 to 1970.”
The description does not meet the requirement in Art III, Sec.
1, of the Constitution, and of Sec. 3, Rule 126 of the Revised
Rules of Court, that the warrant should particularly describe
the things to be seized.
A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the
things to be seized when the description therein is as specific
as the circumstances will ordinarily allow or when the
description expresses a conclusion of fact not of law by which
the warrant officer may be guided in making the search and
which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant
is being issued.
the particularity in the description of objects to be seized
under a search warrant is when the things described are
limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense
for which the warrant is being issued.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is granted.
Accordingly, Search Warrant No. 2-M-70 issued by
respondent Judge is declared null and void;
respondents are permanently enjoined from enforcing
the said search warrant; the documents, papers and
effects seized thereunder are ordered to be returned to
petitioners; and respondent officials the Bureau of Internal
Revenue and their representatives are permanently enjoined
from enforcing the assessments mentioned in Annex "G" of
the present petition, as well as other assessments based on
the documents, papers and effects seized under the search
warrant herein nullified, and from using the same against
petitioners in any criminal or other proceeding. No
pronouncement as to costs.
RHEYNE ROBLEDO
 STONEHIL V DIOKNO G.R. No. L-19550June 19, 1967 –
POSSESSION OF BOOKS AND FINANCIAL RECORDS
ETC CASE – SEARCH WARRANT ON CORPORATION
CASE
CONCEPCION, C.J.:
FACTS:
 Respondent made possible the issuance of 42 search
warrants against the petitioner and the corporation to
search persons and premises of several personal
properties due to an alleged violation of Central Bank
Laws, Tariff and Custom Laws, Internal Revenue
Code and the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines.
As a results, search and seizures were conducted in
the both the residence of the petitioner and in the
corporation's premises.
 Petitioners filed with the Supreme Court this original
action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus and
injunction and prayed that, pending final disposition of
the case, a writ of preliminary injunction be issued
against the prosecutors, their agents and
representatives from using the effect seized or any
copies thereof, in the deportation case and that
thereafter, a decision be rendered quashing the
contested search warrants and declaring the same
null and void. For being violative of the constitution
and the Rules of court by:
(1) not describing with particularity the documents,
books and things to be seized;
(2) money not mentioned in the warrants were
seized;
(3) the warrants were issued to fish evidence for
deportation cases filed against the petitioner;
(4) the searches and seizures were made in an
illegal manner; and
(5) the documents paper and cash money were not
delivered to the issuing courts for disposal in
accordance with law.
 In their answer, the prosecutors (respondent) alleged;
(1) search warrants are valid and issued in
accordance with law;
(2) defects of said warrants, were cured by
petitioners consent; and
(3) in any event the effects are admissible regardless
of the irregularity.
 Respondent-prosecutors also invoke the Moncado vs
People’s Court ruling: even if the searches and
seizures under consideration were unconstitutional,
the documents, papers and things thus seized are
admissible in evidence against petitioners herein.
 On March 20, 1962, the SC issued a writ of
preliminary injunction and partially lifted the same on
June 29, 1962 with respect to some documents and
papers seized from the offices of the corporations.
ISSUES AND HELD:
1.) Whether or not the petitioners have the legal standing to
assail the legality of search warrants issued against the
corporation of which they were officers.
6 CONSTI LAW 2 ARREST,SEARCH,SEIZURE DIGEST
- Officers of certain corporations, from which the
documents, papers, things were seized by means of
search warrants, have no  cause of action to assail the
legality of the contested warrants and of the seizures
made in pursuance thereof, for the simple reason that said
corporations have their respective personalities, separate and
distinct from the personality of herein petitioners, regardless
of the amount of shares of stock or of the interest of each of
them in said corporations, and whatever the offices they hold
therein may be. Indeed, it is well settled that 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. 
Officers of certain corporations can 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 adverted to above, 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.
2.) Whether or not the search warrants issued partakes the
nature of a general search warrants.
- The Constitution  provides:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but
upon probable cause, to be determined 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.
Two points must be stressed in connection with this
constitutional mandate, namely:
(1) that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause,
to be determined by the judge in the manner set forth in
said provision; and
(2) that the warrant shall particularly  describe the things
to be seized.
Search warrants issued upon applications stating that the
natural and juridical person therein named had committed a
"violation of Central Ban Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws,
Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code." In other
words, no specific offense had been alleged in said
applications. The averments thereof with respect to the
offense committed were abstract. As a consequence, it
was impossible  for the judges who issued the warrants
to have found the existence of probable cause, for the
same presupposes the introduction of competent proof
that the party against whom it is sought has
performed particular  acts, or
committed specific  omissions, violating a given
provision of our criminal laws.
RHEYNE ROBLEDO

General search warrants  are outlawed because the sanctity
of the domicile and the privacy of communication and
correspondence at the mercy of the whims caprice or passion
of peace officers.
To prevent the issuance of general warrants this Court
deemed it fit to amend Section 3 of Rule 122 of the former
Rules of Court by providing in its counterpart, under the
Revised Rules of Court  that "a search warrant shall not
issue but upon probable cause in connection with one
specific offense." Not satisfied with this qualification, the
Court added thereto a paragraph, directing that "no
search warrant shall issue for more than one specific
offense."
Seizure of books and records showing all business
transaction of petitioners persons, regardless of whether the
transactions were legal or illegal contravened the explicit
command of our Bill of Rights - that the things to be seized
be particularly described - as well as tending to defeat its
major objective the elimination of general warrants.
The Court held that the doctrine adopted in the Moncado
case must be, as it is hereby, abandoned; that the
warrants for the search of three (3) residences of herein
petitioners, as specified in the Resolution of June 29,
1962, are null and void; that the searches and seizures
therein made are illegal; that the writ of preliminary
injunction heretofore issued, in connection with the
documents, papers and other effects thus seized in said
residences of herein petitioners is hereby made
permanent; that the writs prayed for are granted, insofar as
the documents, papers and other effects so seized in the
aforementioned residences are concerned; that the
aforementioned motion for Reconsideration and
Amendment should be, as it is hereby, denied; and that
the petition herein is dismissed and the writs prayed for
denied, as regards the documents, papers and other effects
seized in the twenty-nine (29) places, offices and other
premises enumerated in the same Resolution, without
special pronouncement as to costs.

3.) Whether or not the seized articles were admissible as

evidence regardless of the illegality of its seizure.

- Most common law jurisdiction have already given up the

Moncado ruling and eventually adopted the exclusionary
rule, realizing that this is the only practical means of
enforcing the constitutional injunction against
unreasonable searches and seizures. In the language of
Judge Learned Hand:

As we understand it, the reason for the exclusion of

evidence competent as such, which has been unlawfully
acquired, is that exclusion is the only practical way of
enforcing the constitutional privilege. In earlier times the
action of trespass against the offending official may have
been protection enough; but that is true no longer. Only in
case the prosecution which itself controls the seizing
officials, knows that it cannot profit by their wrong will
that wrong be repressed.
 
The non-exclusionary rule is contrary, not only to the letter,
but also, to the spirit of the constitutional injunction against
unreasonable searches and seizures. To be sure, if the
applicant for a search warrant has competent evidence
to establish probable cause of the commission of a
given crime by the party against whom the warrant is
intended, then there is no reason why the applicant
should not comply with the requirements of the
fundamental law. Upon the other hand, if he has no such
competent evidence, then it is not possible for the
Judge to find that there is probable cause, and, hence,
no justification for the issuance of the warrant. The only
possible explanation (not justification) for its issuance is the
necessity of fishing evidence of the commission of a crime.
But, then, this fishing expedition is indicative of the absence
of evidence to establish a probable cause.

7 CONSTI LAW 2 ARREST,SEARCH,SEIZURE DIGEST RHEYNE ROBLEDO