Searches and Seizures

Question 1

[FIB}

Sec. 2, Art III .

The right of the people to be secure in their __________________ against _________________ of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be ______, and no ______ or __________ shall issue except upon _________ to be determined ______ by the judge after ________ under __________ of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and _________________ to be searched and the _____________.

Answer 1

persons, houses, papers, and effects;

unreasonable searches and seizures;

inviolable;

search warrant;

warrant of arrest;

probable cause;

personally;

examination;

oath or affirmation;

particularly describing the place;

persons or things to be seized

The right of the people to be secure in their __________________ against _________________ of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be ______, and no ______ or __________ shall issue except upon _________ to be determined ______ by the judge after ________ under __________ of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and _________________ to be searched and the _____________.

Question 2

Who can invoke the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures?

Answer 2

The constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right invocable only by those whose rights have been infringed or threatened to be infringed

[Valmonte v. General De Villa, G.R. No. 83988 (1989)].

The constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right invocable only by those whose rights have been infringed,

Question 3

To whom is the right against unreasonable searches and seizures directed?

Answer 3

Against the State; the right cannot be invoked against a private individual.

In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked against the State

[People v. Marti, supra].

Question 4

Does the right against unreasonable searches and seizures include aliens?

Answer 4

YES

It protects all persons including aliens [Qua Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, G.R. No. L-10280 (1963)].

Question 5

Is a corporation entitled to immunity against unreasonable searches and seizures?

Answer 5

YES.

A corporation is entitled to immunity, under the 4th Amendment, against unreasonable searches and seizures. A corporation is, after all, an association of individuals under an assumed name and with a distinct legal entity. In organizing itself as a collective body it waives no constitutional immunities appropriate to such body

[Bache and Co. v. Ruiz, supra].

Question 6

What is a search warrant?

Answer 6

Search Warrant – an order in writing, issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property described therein and bring it before the court

[Rule 126, Sec. 1, ROC].

Question 7

What are the requisites of a valid warrant?

Answer 7

a. existence of probable cause
b. personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce
c. particularity of description

Sec. 2, Art III

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.

Question 8

What constitute probable cause?

Answer 8

Probable Cause - such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that:

1. an offense has been committed
2. the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched

[Burgos v. Chief of Staff, G.R. No. L-64261 (1984)].

Question 9

What is the requirement in the determination of probable cause in issuing a valid warrant?

Answer 9

Needs to ber personnally determined by the judge

Question 10

What are the requisites in the determination by the judge of the existence of probable cause?

Answer 10

The judge must make an exhaustive and probing examination of witnesses and applicant and not merely routine or pro forma examination [Nala v. Barroso, Jr., G.R. No. 153087 (2003)].

The determination of probable cause calls for an exercise of judgment after a judicial appraisal of the facts and should not be allowed to be delegated in the absence of any rule to the contrary.

Question 11

How is the examination of complainant and witness done by the judge? (re issuing a warrant)

Answer 11

• How it is done: In the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath [Rule 126, Sec. 6, ROC]
• Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus not sufficient.
• The examining Judge has to take depositions in writing of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce and attach them to the record.
• Such written deposition is necessary in order that the Judge may be able to properly determine the existence or non-existence of the probable cause, to hold liable for perjury the person giving it if it will be found later that his declarations are false. There must be a conduct
• The examining judge must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit but must make his own inquiry on the intent and justification of the application [Roan v. Gonzales, G.R. No. 71410 (1984)].

Question 12

What is an oath?

Answer 12

Oath – any form of attestation that he is bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully or truthfully; 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.

Question 13

What are the requisites for an oath? (re issuance of warrant)

Answer 13

• Must refer to facts

- Such facts are of personal knowledge of the petitioner or applicant or witnesses. Not hearsay.

Question 14

What are the test of sufficiency of an oath?

Answer 14

“Whether or not it was drawn in a manner that perjury could be charged against the affiant and he be held liable for damages.”

Must be on the basis of their personal knowledge of the facts they are testifying to. [Nala v. Barroso, Jr., supra; Burgos v. Chief of Staff [G.R. No. L-64261 (1984); Roan v. Gonzales, supra; People v. Malmstead [G.R. No. 91107 (1991)]

The testimony must be based on the own personal knowledge of the complainant and of the witnesses, not mere hearsay or information from a “reliable source” [Alvarez v. CFI, G.R. No. L-45358].

Question 15

What must be describe particularly for a warrant ot be valid?

Answer 15

a. place to be searched

b. description of place/things

Question 16

Does the description of the property to be seized need to be technically accurate or precise? (re warrants)

Answer 16

NO.

The description of the property to be seized need not be technically accurate or precise. Its nature will vary according to whether the identity of the property is a matter of concern. The description is required to be specific only insofar as the circumstances will allow [Kho v. Judge Makalintal, G.R. Nos. 94902-06 (1999)].

Question 17

When is a search warrant said to particularly describe the things to be seized?

Answer 17

A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized when the:

1. Description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow [People v. Rubio, G.R. No. L35500 (1932)]; or
2. Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law, by which the warrant officer may be guided in making the search and seizure; or
3. Things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued

[Bache and Co. v. Ruiz,supra].

Question 18

Does an error in the name of the person in the search warrant invalidate the warrant?

Answer 18

NO.

An error in the name of the person in the search warrant does not invalidate the warrant, as long as it contains a description personae [including additional descriptions] that will enable the officer to identify the accused without difficulty [Nala v. Barroso, Jr., supra].

Search warrant is valid despite the mistake in the name of the persons to be searched. The authorities conducted surveillance and testbuy operations before obtaining the search warrant and subsequently implementing it. They had personal knowledge of the identity of the persons and the place to be searched, although they did not specifically know the names of the accused [People v. Tiu Won Chua, G.R. No. 149878 (2003)].

Question 19

Is a John Doe search warrant valid?

Answer 19

YES.

A John Doe search warrant is valid. There is nothing to prevent issue and service of warrant against a party whose name is unknown [People v. Veloso, G.R. No. L-23051 (1925)].

Question 20

What is the exeption to the general rule that the warrant must indicate the particular place to searched and person or thing to be seized?

Answer 20

Exception:

If the nature of the goods to be seized cannot be particularly determined

1. the nature of the thing is general in description
2. the thing is not required of a very technical description

[Alvarez v. CFI, supra]

Question 21

What may be searched under a search warrant?

Answer 21

A search warrant may be issued for the search and
seizure of personal property:

▪ Subject of the offense

▪ Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or

▪ Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense

[Sec 3, Rule 126, ROC].

Question 22

What is a general warrant?

Answer 22

General Warrant– one that:

• Does not describe with particularity the things subject of the search and seizure; or
• Where probable cause has not been properly established.

Question 23

What are the effects of a general warrant?

Answer 23

-It is a void warrant

[Nolasco v. Paño, G.R. No. L-69803 (1985)].

• any evidence obtained in violation shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding [Art. III Sec 3]
• the unconstitutionality of the search and the seizure or the use of a void search warrant renders the items seized inadmissible in evidence. Exclusion is the only practical way of enforcing the constitutional privilege [Stonehill v Diokno]

Question 24

When may general description not invalidate a warrant?

Answer 24

General descriptions will not invalidate the entire warrant if other items have been particularly described [Uy v BIR]

Question 25

What are the requisites for the proper conduct of the search?

Answer 25

Conduct of the search [SEC. 7, Rule 126, ROC]

a. In the presence of a lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family, or
b. If occupant or members of the family are absent, in the presence of 2 witnesses of sufficient age and discretion, residing in the same localit

Question 26

What is the effect of failure to comply with Sec 7, Rule 126 ROC (conduct of the search)?

Answer 26

Failure to comply with Sec. 7 Rule 126 invalidates the search

[People v. Gesmundo, G.R. No. 89373 (1993)].

Question 27

When is forcibel entry justified in a search?

Answer 27

Force may be used in entering a dwelling if justified by Rule 126, ROC, e.g. occupants of the house refused to open the door despite the fact that the searching party knocked several times, and the agents saw suspicious movements of the people inside the house

[People v. Salanguit, G.R. Nos. 133254-55 (2001)].

Question 28

What is the effect of a void arrest warrant?

Answer 28

A void arrest warrant would render the arrest invalid and illegal.

Question 29

Does an illegal arrest bar the state from the prosecution of the accused?

Answer 29

NO.

The illegality of an arrest does not bar the state from the prosecution of the accused. Despite illegality of both search and arrest thus inadmissibility of evidence acquired, guilt may still be established through eyewitness testimony [People v. Manlulu, G.R. No. 102140].

Question 30

What are the exeption to the warrant requirement / Instances of valid warrantless searches?

Answer 30

a. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest (recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court and by prevailing jurisprudence)
b. Seizure of evidence in plain view
c. Search of a moving vehicle
d. Consented warrantless search
e. Customs search
f. Stop and Frisk
g. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances
h. Search of vessels and aircraft
i. inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitarry and building regulations

Question 31

What are the determinants of the reasonableness of a warrantless search enumeratied in People v Aruta?

Answer 31

In Aruta, the standards for probable cause are different from those required for the issuance of warrants.

Aruta implies that the reasonableness of a warrantless search is determined by the

1. information received and used as a basis for the search, and
2. additional factors and circumstances.
   The two, taken together, constitute the probable cause which justifies warrantless searches and seizures.

Question 32

What may be searche incidental to a lawful arrest?

Answer 32

A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without a search warrant
[Sec. 12, Rule 126, ROC].

Absent a valid Search Warrant, the search is confined to the person being lawfully arrested.

It is also a general rule that, as an incident of an arrest, the place or premises where the arrest was made can also be searched without a search warrant. In this case, the extent and reasonableness of the search must be decided on its own facts and circumstances.

What must be considered is the balancing of the individual’s right to privacy and the public’s interest in the prevention of crime and the apprehension of criminals [Nolasco v. Paño, supra].

Question 33

What are the tests for a valid search incidental to a lawful arrest?

Answer 33

Test for validity

1. Item to be searched was within the arrester’s custody;
2. Search was contemporaneous with the arrest

Question 34

Can a search incidental to arrest be valid if the arrest is illegal?

Answer 34

NO.

An “arrest being incipiently illegal, it logically follows that the subsequent search was similarly illegal” [People v. Aruta, supra].

Question 35

What may the arresting officer search in a search incidental to arrest?

Answer 35

1. The arrestee’s person to:
   a. discover or weapons and
   b. Seize evidence to concealment or destruction; and
2. The area within the immediate control of the arrestee, i.e. area from which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence.

Question 36

What is considered under the “immediate control” of the arrestee?

Answer 36

Immediate control – immediate area to the defendant’s person where there are nearby weapons he could grab to attack the officer or what he has in his pocket.

It will be reasonable for officer to confiscate whatever may be used to threaten his life or limb.

Question 37

What is the plain view doctrine?

Answer 37

Things seized are within plain view of a searching party

Question 38

What are the requisites of the plain view doctrine - as valid warratles search?

Answer 38

1. Prior valid intrusion based on valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties
2. Evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are
3. Evidence must be immediately apparent
4. “Plain view” justified mere seizure of evidence without further search

[People v. Aruta, supra; N.B. substantially the same as Nala v. Barroso requirements]

Question 39

When is an object in plain view?

Answer 39

An object is in “plain view” if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight.

Question 40

When does the plain view doctrine apply?

Answer 40

The plain view doctrine only applies where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused but inadvertently comes across an incriminating object

[People v. Musa, G.R. No. 96177 (1993)].

Question 41

Why is a search warrant not necessary in a search of moving vehicles?

Answer 41

Securing a search warrant is not practicable since the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought [Papa v. Mago, supra].

Question 42

When is a “stop and search” without a warrant at military or police checkpoints valid?

Answer 42

“Stop and search” without a warrant at military or police checkpoints has been declared not to be illegal per se so long as it is required by exigencies of public order and conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists

[Valmonte v. de Villa, G.R. No. 83988 (1989)].

Question 43

When is search permissible for a routine inspection?

Answer 43

For a mere routine inspection, the search is normally permissible when it is limited to a mere visual search, where the occupants are not subjected to physical or body search.

[Caballes v. CA, supra; People v. Libnao, G.R. No. 136860 (2003)].

Question 44

When is it permissible to stop a vehicle and subject it to an extensive search?

Answer 44

On the other hand, when the vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search, it would be constitutionally permissible only if the officers conducting the search had reasonable or probable cause to believe, before the search that either the motorist is a law offender or they will find the instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime in the vehicle to be searched [Caballes v. CA, supra; People v. Libnao, G.R. No. 136860 (2003)].

Question 45

What is the purpose of a customs search?

Answer 45

To verify whether or not Custom duties and taxes were paid for their importation.

Question 46

The police are allowed to conduct warrantless searches in behalf of the ____________________.

Answer 46

Department of Customs

Question 47

________________________
states that no warrant is required for police or authorized persons to pass, enter, search any land, enclosure, building, warehouse, vessels, aircrafts, vehicles but not dwelling.

Answer 47

Sec. 219 of the Customs Modernization and Tariff Act

Question 48

When is there a justifiable stop and frisk?

Answer 48

There is a justifiable cause to stop and frisk persons who flee upon seeing law enforcement

[People v. Solayao, G.R. No. 119220 (1996)].

Question 49

What is an example of a valid warrantles search due to exigent and emergency circumstances?

Answer 49

The raid and seizure of firearms and ammunition at the height of the 1989 coup d’état, was held valid, considering the exigent and emergency situation. The military operatives had reasonable ground to believe that a crime was being committed, and they had no opportunity to apply for a search warrant from the courts because the latter were closed. Under such urgency and exigency, a search warrant could be validly dispensed with

[People v. de Gracia, G.R. Nos. 102009-10 (1994)].

Question 50

What are the requisites of a valid warrantless arrest?

Answer 50

a. in flagrante delicto
b. Hot pursuit
c. escaped prisoners
d. when the right is voluntarily waived (estoppel)

Section 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a 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;
(b) When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
(c) 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 is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.

In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112. (5a)

Question 51

When is in flagrante delicto a valid reason for warrantless arrest?

Answer 51

When in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense The person must be arrested after the offense has been committed and in the presence of a police officer [People v. Mengote, G.R. No. 87059 (1992)].

Question 52

What are instances of in a valid warrantless arrest due to in flagrante delicto?

Answer 52

Rebellion is a continuing offense. Therefore a rebel may be arrested without a warrant at any time of the day or the night as he is deemed to be in the act of committing rebellion. [Umil v. Ramos, supra]

Though kidnapping with serious illegal detention is deemed a continuing crime, it can be considered as such only when the deprivation of liberty is persistent and continuing from one place to another [Parulan v. Dir. of Prisons, G.R. No. L-28519 (1968)].

Buy-Bust: A buy-bust operation is a valid in flagrante arrest. The subsequent search of the person arrested and the premises within his immediate control is valid as an incident to a lawful arrest [People v. Hindoy, G.R. No. 132662 (2001)].

Question 53

When is there unlawful arrest in a buy-bust op?

Answer 53

Instead of arresting the suspect after the sale in a buy-bust op, the officer returned to the police headquarters and filed his report. It was only in the evening that he, without warrant, arrested the suspect at his house where dried marijuana leaves were found and seized. This is unlawful arrest [People v. Rodriguez, G.R. No. 138987 (1992)].

Question 54

When is there ‘hot pursuit’ justifying a warrantless arrest?

Answer 54

When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it

Question 55

What are the requisites for a valid warrantless arrest due to ‘hot pursuit’?

Answer 55

1. Offense had just been committed; The person must be immediately arrested after the commission of the offense. [People v. Manlulu, supra].
2. Person making the arrest has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge.

Question 56

“Personal knowledge of facts” in arrest without a warrant must be based on what?

Answer 56

Experience of an officer which gives the idea that there is probable cause that the person caught is responsible. It has been ruled that “personal knowledge of facts” in arrests without a warrant must be based on
probable cause, which means an actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion

[Cadua v. CA, G.R. No. 123123 (1999)].

Question 57

What is the acceptable lapse of time between the arrest and commission of crime for it to be a valid warrantless arrest due to hot pursuit?

Answer 57

There must be a large measure of immediacy between the time the offense is committed and the time of the arrest. If there was an appreciable lapse of time between arrest and commission of crime, warrant of arrest must be secured [NACHURA].

Warrantless arrest of accused for selling marijuana 2 days after he escaped is invalid [People v. Kimura, G.R. No. 130805 (2004)].

The warrantless arrest only 3 hours after the killing was held valid since personal knowledge was established as to the fact of death and facts
indicating that the accused killed the victim [People v. Gerente, G.R. Nos. 95847-48 (1993)]

Question 58

When is there valid warrantless arrest due to escaped prisoners?

Answer 58

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 is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another

Question 59

When is there a waiver of right in a warrantless arrest?

Answer 59

Appellant is estopped from questioning the illegality of the arrest when he voluntarily submitted himself to the jurisdiction of the court by entering a plea of not guilty and by participating in the trial [People v. Salvatierra, G.R. No. 104663 (1997)].

Failure to raise the question of admissibility during the trial is waiver of the right to assert inadmissibility on appeal [Manalili v. CA, G.R. No. 113447 (1997)].

Question 60

What is the scope of a waiver to a warrantless arrest?

Answer 60

Waiver is limited to the illegal arrest. It does not extend to the search made as an incident thereto, or the subsequent seizure of evidence allegedly found during the search

[People v. Peralta, G.R. No. L-19069 (2004)].

Question 61

Does a Randomized Drug Testing for students and employees violate the right to privacy in the Constitution?

Answer 61

NO.

The Court held that Randomized Drug Testing (RDT) for students and employees does not violate the right to privacy in the Constitution. Students do not have rational expectation of privacy since they are minors and the school is in loco parentis. Employees and students in universities, on the other hand, voluntarily subject themselves to the intrusion because of their contractual relation to the company or university.

Question 62

Is it constitutional to subject criminals to Randomized Drug Testing?

Answer 62

NO

But it is unconstitutional to subject criminals to RDT. Subjecting criminals to RDT would violate their right against self-incrimination.

Question 63

Is it constitutional to subject public officials to Randomized Drug Testing?

Answer 63

NO.

It is also unconstitutional to subject public officials whose qualifications are provided for in the Constitution (e.g. members of Congress) to RDT. Subjecting them to RDT would amount to imposing an additional qualification not provided for in the Constitution [SJS v. Dangerous Drugs Board, G.R. No. 157870 (2008)].

Question 64

Is a search and seizure of an illegal drug during a routine airport inspection valid?

Answer 64

YES

The Court held that the search and seizure of an illegal drug during a routine airport inspection made pursuant to the aviation security procedures as a constitutionally reasonable administrative search.

Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by exposure of their persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting a lack of subjective expectation of privacy, which expectation society is prepared to recognize as reasonable. Thus, while the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures is guaranteed by Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution,22 a routine security check being conducted in air and sea ports has been a recognized exception. [People v O’Cochlain, G.R. No. 229071 (2018)]