Section 2. Searches and Seizures

Question 1

Art. III, Sec. 2.

Answer 1

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.

Question 2

Scope of the Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and to privacy of
communications and correspondence:

Answer 2

1. It is available to all persons, including aliens, natural or juridical.
2. This right is personal, and may be invoked only by the person entitled to it.
3. The right extends not only to the privacy of one’s home but also to his office. It also
   covers papers and other effects.

Question 3

PROBABLE CAUSE

Answer 3

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 object sought in connection with
the offense are in the place sought to be searched. (J. Escolin, Burgos vs Chief of Staff, pp. 134
Cruz).
o Evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt is not required, unlike in criminal cases.
o There is probable cause when it is more likely than not that the object being searched is
kept in that place

Question 4

what is a search warrant?

Answer 4

An order of a judge in writing directed to a peace officer commanding him to search a particular place in order to confiscate matters which are related to a crime.

Question 5

PRINCIPLES FOR A VALID SEARCH WARRANT:

Answer 5

1.) As to the subject - The Constitution requires that the object being searched should be specified
in the search warrant. Otherwise, in a general warrant, the authority will not know what to get and what not get during the search.
2.) As to the place - The place to be searched should also be specified or described in the warrant. Failure to do so will make the warrant general.
3.) It must alienate to one specific offense

Question 6

PROCEDURES IN OBTAINING A SEARCH WARRANT?

Answer 6

1. The judge should issue a warrant based on probable cause.
2. The judge must examine the witnesses personally.
3. The examination must be by means of searching questions.
4. The warrant must entertain specific descriptions as to object, as to place and the requirement that it shall only be for one crime or one offense. It is not enough that you suspect the person. You need to support it with affidavits of witnesses. Submit it to the judge can now issue a search warrant if there is probable cause.

Question 7

The police went to a judge to apply for a search warrant. Since the judge was busy.
He designated the clerk of court to examine the witnesses and to write down his findings. After his trial the judge took the oath of the witnesses to verify the truthfulness of their answers to the searching questions of the clerk. The judge issued the search warrant. Was probable cause personally determined by the judge?

Answer 7

The court ruled that there was no personal examination by the judge. It was not sufficient even if he studied and ratified the affidavits. The judge should personally determine probable cause.

Question 8

If in just one search conducted, the court issued a warrant charging the accused of violation of PD1866 or the Illegal Possession of Firearms, etc. Does it violate the Constitution requiring that the warrant should be for one specific offense only?

Answer 8

No. The reason given by the court pertaining to etc. is it stands for ammunition.
Others would object to the ruling made since the judge was not the one conducting the search. It
was not for the judge to give his reason for issuing a warrant similar to a general warrant. What is
stated in the warrant should be specific that the authority conducting the search will have little chance
of committing an error in the process.

Question 9

Three types of a general warrant:

Answer 9

When it fails to describe:
a. The object to be seized
b. The place to conduct the search
c. To what specific offense it is related to

Question 10

The RTC judge of Caloocan issued a warrant to search for loose firearms, in a particular house located in Quezon City. As a result of the search, the accused was charged for violation of PD 1866. The accused raised the issue of validity of the warrant that the Quezon City is no longer under the jurisdiction of the Caloocan RTC judge. Therefore, if the warrant is void, the search is invalid and all those confiscated cannot be held admissible in court.Is the warrant valid or not?

Answer 10

The court ruled that the warrant is valid. They resorted to BP129 which grants jurisdiction to all the courts. It states that all processes in court are valid and effective all over the
Philippines.

Question 10

The RTC judge of Caloocan issued a warrant to search for loose firearms, in a particular house located in Quezon City. As a result of the search, the accused was charged for violation of PD 1866. The accused raised the issue of validity of the warrant that the Quezon City is no longer under the jurisdiction of the Caloocan RTC judge. Therefore, if the warrant is void, the search is invalid and all those confiscated cannot be held admissible in court.Is the warrant valid or not?

Answer 10

The court ruled that the warrant is valid. They resorted to BP129 which grants jurisdiction to all the courts. It states that all processes in court are valid and effective all over the
Philippines.

Question 11

PROCEDURE TO OBTAIN A SEARCH WARRANT:

Answer 11

1. Petition for a search warrant before a judge and such must be supported by your affidavit.
2. The judge must personally examine the complainant and his witness in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under oath.
3. The facts must be personally known to them. Hearsay is not allowed.

Question 12

PROCEDURES TO OBTAIN AN ARREST WARRANT:

Answer 12

1. A case must be filed before the city prosecutor’s office against the person
   accused. This must be supported by your affidavit, evidences, other relevant documents to the case.
2. The fiscal will give the accused a chance to file his counter-affidavit if he thinks that a crime was actually committed.
3. The accused submits his counter-affidavit.
4. The fiscal studies the documents and conducts a preliminary investigation. The preliminary investigation is to find out whether there is probable cause to hold the person accused for trial. If the fiscal believes that there is probable cause, he will submit all the evidences, affidavits, and other documents to the judge.
5. If the judge will agree that there really is probable cause, he will issue the warrant of arrest. (The judge is allowed 90 days to study if there is probable cause.)

Question 13

Is a John Doe warrant valid?

Answer 13

According to the court, a John Doe warrant is void. The Constitution requires that there must be specific description or designation of the person to be arrested. John Does warrants are general warrants.

EXCEPTION: When it describes the particular person who will be arrested, also known as
descriptio personae

Question 14

Will it not go against the Constitution that only the judge can issue an arrest warrant?

Answer 14

It does not. The only exception to the general rule is the President can also issue an arrest warrant.
The basis for this is his foreign relations as part of his executive functions as stated in the Constitution. It is the final judgment which grants him the power to issue the arrest and the deportation.

Question 15

what are the exceptions to the general rule on warrantless arrest?

Answer 15

1. Search incident to a lawful arrest
2. Consented search
3. Search in plain view
4. Stop and Frisk (Terry Search)
5. Search in moving vehicle
6. Search in the enforcement of Custom laws
7. Search during exigency

Question 16

Purposes of the search incident to a lawful arrest:

Answer 16

1. In order to find out if the accused has a weapon in which he can use for escaping
2. To find out, whether the search is conducted at his body or in the place within his immediate control, there are matters which are related to, or instruments of the crime

Question 17

Search incident to a lawful arrest is valid when?

Answer 17

The search incident to a lawful arrest is valid when: 1) There is a valid arrest warrant, or the
person is actually committing the crime; 2) The search must be limited to the person of the accused or to
the place within his immediate control; 3) The search must also be contemporaneous with the arrest.

Question 18

CONSENTED SEARCH:

Answer 18

It is also called a waiver. The person allows that a search can be conducted. He waives his
rights against unreasonable searches.

Question 19

Requisites for consented search

Answer 19

:
1. The person must possess such right. It must appear that the right exists
2. The person has knowledge of the existence of such right.
3. The person has the intention to relinquish such right

Question 20

when is there implied waiver?

Answer 20

Implied waiver can be done by not objecting to the search. Silence means implied consent.

Question 21

The PC conducted a search on the house rented by the accused, who was believed to be a member
of the NPA. The PC had no search warrant. That time, only the helper was present. She gave them
the consent to enter and search the house and rooms wherein they obtained firearms. The accused
challenged the admissibility of the evidences.

Answer 21

The court stated that the evidences are inadmissible. Only the person whose rights will be invaded can give the consent to a search. Only Damaso can waive his rights. Consent can also be given by a person authorized to do so. Such authorization must be expressly given by the owner to a
caretaker.

Question 22

Here was a report that there were rebels in the house of Veroy. During that time, Veroy was out of
town. To conduct the search, the police asked the permission from Veroy, through a long distance call
to search the house for rebels. In effect of the search, they were able to recover firearms, but there
were no rebels. Are the firearms admissible in court, even if the warrant was for the search of rebels?

Answer 22

The court held that the firearms were not admissible as evidence since the warrant was for the search of rebels, not firearms. There was a prior justification for the intrusion. On the other hand, the police did not come across the guns inadvertently since they were inside the drawer.

Question 23

The accused, while carrying a carton, boarded on a bus ahead of two policemen. He then placed the
box under his seat. At a certain stop, one of the policemen opened the box when the accused went
down and found marijuana. Upon reaching their destination, one of the policemen went to the back
and asked the passengers “Who is the owner of this box?” but nobody answered. They arrested the
accused.

Answer 23

The court held that the evidence is not admissible because there was no probable cause to justify the search. It is very normal to carry a box. He was not acting suspiciously.

Question 24

Requisites for search in plain view

Answer 24

1. There must be a prior justification for the intrusion. Meaning the police officers should have a right to be there in the first place.
   Example:
   a. A crime is being committed
   b. There is consent to the search
   c. There is a valid search warrant
   d. There is a valid arrest warrant
2. The police must come across the evidence inadvertently or accidentally.
3. The illegality must be readily apparent.

Question 25

The police while on patrol heard gunfires. They saw Rosillo in the act of firing his gun in the air.
When they tried to approach him, Rosillo ran away and entered a house. The police followed him. When they came to the house, they asked Evaristo, the owner, about the suspect’s whereabouts. Evaristo replied that Rosillo was no longer in the house. Anyway, the police were
able to get Evaristo’s consent to conduct a search of the house. It turned out that the house was
full of firearms.
ISSUE: Are the evidences recovered admissible in court?

Answer 25

The court ruled that they are. The police had prior justification for the intrusion since they were given consent by Evaristo. They also came across the guns inadvertently, and the
illegality of the objects are readily apparent.

Question 26

The policemen had a search warrant for the seizure of shabu and their paraphernalia. When the
police entered the house, they found a gun and a cup filled with bullets on top of the television
set. ISSUE: Are these admissible in court?

Answer 26

Basing on the Musa case, they should be held as admissible in court. But according to the court, they are not. The authority given by the court was only to obtain the shabu and paraphernalia. They had no authority to get the firearms and ammunitions. The warrant specifically defines the object to be searched. It would seem that there should be some
modification in the requisites of search in plain view.

Question 27

STOP AND FRISK (TERRY SEARCH):

Answer 27

The idea seen here is that the person is not on board a vehicle nor inside his house, the person can just be walking and the police will stop and search him.

Question 28

Reasonable Warrantless Searches In Searches Of Moving Vehicles:

Answer 28

1. The police can simply look at the vehicle
2. The police can draw aside the curtain of a parked vehicle
3. The police can flash a light inside the vehicle.

Question 29

Examples of extensive searches: (These are prohibited without the warrant if without probable
cause)

Answer 29

1. Body searches
2. Inspection of vehicles other than visual inspection, e.g. opening of the compartments, ordering
   the passenger to alight from the car

Question 30

SEARCH IN THE ENFORCEMENT OF CUSTOM LAWS:

Answer 30

4 Requisites for a Valid Warrantless Search under the Tariffs and Customs Code:
1. It must be conducted by persons exercising authority under customs law. Only the customs
police. Ordinary police or military do not possess this authority. Although some of the members
of the Sta. Ana police have been conducting searches, under this, they are not allowed but only if
they are deputized by the customs police.
2. There must be probable cause. According to the Mago case, a mere report is sufficient to
constitute probable cause. Acting suspiciously is not necessary.
3. The search must be limited to persons, vehicles, vessels (ships), aircrafts, land enclosure
(fenced places), warehouse, stores, and also dwelling houses. In dwelling house, the probable
cause might require more stringent reason or cause.
4. Only dutiable or prohibited goods can be seized. Meaning, these are items subject to tariffs
duties and taxes. Or goods which are prohibited that are entering the country.

Question 31

3 Exceptions for a Valid Warrantless Arrests:

Answer 31

1. When in his presence, the person to be arrested: (In Flagrante Delicto)
   a. Has committed
   b. Is actually committing, or
   c. Is attempting to commit an offense
2. When an offense has just been committed and the arresting officer has personal knowledge of the
   facts that the person to be arrested has committed it. Meaning, this is knowledge derived from
   his sensed perception. It must have just been freshly committed.
3. When the person to be arrested is an escapee after final judgment or a person temporarily
   confined while his case is still pending.

Question 32

When the Exclusionary Rule can be invoked:

Answer 32

1. When the search is warrantless and it does not fall in any of the 7 exceptions.
2. When there is a warrant but it was void.

Question 33

Pursuing reports that prohibited drugs are being smuggled at night time, the So. Luzon Comm. set
up checkpoints at the end of Cavite coastal road to check passing motor vehicles. A 19 year old boy was
stopped by the officers and without objections, his car was searched. The back of his car yielded
marijuana. The drug was immediately confiscated and the boy was brought to the station for questioning.
Was the warrantless search legal? Was there also probable cause based on the facts given?

Answer 33

This is a case of an extensive search. In search of moving vehicles, extensive search is only allowed
if there is probable cause. Similar to the Bagista case, the search was also based on a general report.
There was no probable cause to conduct an extensive search.

Question 34

Some police operatives acting under a lawfully issued search warrant, conducted a search for
firearms in X’s house, located at #10 Shaw Blvd. The police recovered 10 kilos of cocaine instead of
firearm. Is the evidence admissible?

Answer 34

The doctrine of “plain view” can be used by the police (similar to People vs Del Rosario).
When evidences not held admissible in the court:
1. When the search is warrantless and it does not fall under the 7 exceptions
2. When the warrant is void
3. When the search is valid but the object taken is not what is specifically described in the warrant

Question 35

Supposed the police officers recovered the unlicensed firearm in an adjacent lot, Lot #12, which still
belongs to X, will it be admissible?

Answer 35

No, because the warrant specifically indicates that the place to be searched is #10 and not #12. The
police have no right to search for other places.

Question 36

On the basis of a report and confidential information, the various electronic equipments which were
illegally imported into the Phil. were found in the bodega of G Corp. in Cebu. The collector of customs of
Cebu issued in the morning of Oct. 27, 1988 a warrant for the seizure of the electronic equipments and
stated that the Tariff and Customs Code were violated. Is the seizure valid?

Answer 36

It is valid. Also enumerable are the requisites for a valid warrantless search by customs personnel.

Question 37

John learned that the police were looking for him in connection to a rape of an 18 year old girl. He
presented himself to the police desk sergeant about a week later. It so happened that the victim was at
the station. Upon seeing him, she immediately pinpointed John as the rapist. He was immediately
arrested. Is the arrest valid?

Answer 37

No. It is not a valid warrantless arrest. The police had no personal knowledge. The crime has not
been freshly committed. One week had already passed. It is important that the two requisites must go
together unless the case involves a crime concerning National Security. The immediacy of the crime with
the arrest is imperative.

Question 38

No, 3; Congress is considering a law against drunken driving. Under the legislation, police authorities may ask any driver to take a “breathalyzer test”, wherein the driver exhales several times into a device which can determine whether he has been driving under the influence of alcohol. The results of the test can be used, in any legal proceeding against him. Furthermore, declaring that the issuance of a driver’s license gives rise only to a privilege to drive motor vehicles on public roads, the law provides that a driver who refuses to take the test shall be automatically subject to a 90-day suspension of his driver’s license, Cite two [2] possible constitutional objections to this law. Resolve the objections and explain whether any such infirmities can be cured.

Answer 38

R: Possible objections to the law are that requiring a driver to take the breathalyzer test will violate his right against self-incrimination, that providing for the suspension of his driver’s license without any hearing violates due process, and that the proposed law will violate the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, because it allows police authorities to require a drive to take the breathalyzer test even if there is no probable cause
Requiring a driver to take a breathalyzer test does not violate his right against self- incrimination, because he is not being compelled to give testimonial evidence. He is merely being asked to submit to a physical test. This is not covered by the constitutional guarantee against self-incrimination. Thus, in South Dakota vs. Neville, 459 U.S. 553, it was held for this reason that requiring a driver to take a blood-alcohol test is valid.
As held in Mackey vs. Afontrya 443 U.S. 1, because of compelling government interest in safety along the streets, the license of a driver who refuses to take the breathalyzer test may be suspended immediately pending a post- suspension hearing, but there must be a provision for a post-suspension hearing. Thus, to save the proposed law from unconstitutionally on the ground of denial of due process, it should provide for an immediate hearing upon suspension of the driver’s license. The proposed law violates the right against unreasonable searches and seizures. It will authorize police authorities to stop any driver and ask him to take the breathalyzer test even in the absence of a probable cause.

Question 39

No. III: “X” a Constabulary Officer, was arrested pursuant to a lawful court order in Baguio City for murder. He was brought to Manila where a warrantless search was conducted in his official quarters at Camp Crame, The search team found and seized the murder weapon in a drawer of “X”. Can “X” claim that the search and seizure were illegal and move for exclusion from evidence of the weapon seized? Explain.

Answer 39

Yes, “X” can do so. The warrantless search cannot be justified as an incident of a valid arrest, because considerable time had elapsed after his arrest in Baguio before the search of his quarters in Camp Crame, Quezon City was made, and because the distance between the place of arrest and the place of search negates any claim that the place searched is within his “immediate control” so as to justify the apprehension that he might destroy or conceal evidence of crime before a warrant can be obtained. (Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) ) in Nolasco v. Cruz Pano, 147 SCRA 509 (1987), the Supreme Court reconsidered its previous decision holding that a warrantless search, made after 30 minutes from the time of arrest, and, in a place several blocks away from the place of arrest, was valid. It held that a warrantless search is limited to the search of the person of the arrestee at the time and incident to his arrest and for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the offense. A contrary rule would justify the police in procuring a warrant of arrest and, by virtue thereof, not only arrest the person but also search his dwelling. A warrant requires that all facts as to the condition of the property and its surroundings and its improvements and capabilities must be considered, and this can only be done in a judicial proceeding.

Question 40

No. 9; Some police operatives, acting under a lawfully issued warrant for the purpose of. searching for firearms in the House of X located at No. 10 Shaw Boulevard, Pasig, Metro Manila, found, instead of firearms, ten kilograms of cocaine. .

Answer 40

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(1) Yes, the police operatives may lawfully seize the cocaine, because it is an item whose possession is prohibited by law, it was in plain view and it was only inadvertently discovered in the course of a lawful search. The possession of cocaine is prohibited by Section 8 of the Dangerous Drugs Act. As held in Magoncia v. Palacio, 80 Phil. 770, an article whose possession is prohibited by law may be seized without the need of any search warrant if it was discovered during a lawful search. The additional requirement laid down in Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687 that the discovery of the article must have been made inadvertently was also satisfied in this case.
(2) No, X cannot successfully challenge the legality of the search simply because the peace officers did not inform him about his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. Section 12(1), Article III of the 1987 Constitution provides: “Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice.”
As held in People v. Dy, 158 SCRA 111. for
this provision to apply, a suspect must be
under investigation. There was no
investigation involved in this case.
(3) The unlicensed firearms stored at 12 Shaw Boulevard may lawfully be seized since their possession is illegal. As held in Magoncia a Palacio, 80 Phil. 770, when an individual possesses contraband (unlicensed firearms belong to this category), he is committing a crime and he can be arrested without a warrant and the contraband can be seized.

Question 41

No XI - Armed with a search and seizure warrant, a team of policemen led by Inspector Trias entered a compound and searched the house described therein as No. 17 Speaker Perez St., Sta. Mesa Heights, Quezon City, owned by Mr. Ernani Pelets, for a reported cache of firearms and ammunition. However, upon thorough search of the house, the police found nothing.
Then, acting on a hunch, the policemen proceeded to a smaller house inside the same compound with address at No. 17-A Speaker Perez St., entered it, and conducted a search therein over the objection of Mr. Pelets who happened to be the same owner of the first house. There, the police found the unlicensed firearms and ammunition they were looking for. As a result. Mr. Ernani Pelets was criminally charged in court with Illegal possession of firearms and ammunition as penalized under P.D. 1866, as amended by RA. 8294. At the trial, he vehemently objected to the presentation of the evidence against him for being inadmissible. Is Mr. Emani Pelet’s contention valid or not? Why? (5%)

Answer 41

The contention of Ernani Pelet is valid. As held in People vs. Court of Appeals, 291SCRA 400 (1993), if the place searched is different from that stated in the search warrant, the evidence seized is inadmissible. The policeman cannot modify the place to be searched as set out in the search warrant

Question 42

No. 4: Larry was an overnight guest in a motel. After he checked out the following day, the chambermaid found an attache case which she surmised was left behind by Larry. She turned it over to the manager who, to determine the name and address of the owner, opened the attache case and saw packages which had a peculiar smell and upon squeezing felt like dried leaves. His curiosity aroused, the manager made an opening on one of the packages and took several grams of the contents thereof. He took the packages to the NBI, and in the presence of agents, opened the packages, the contents of which upon laboratory examination, turned out to be marijuana flowering tops, Larry was subsequently found, brought to the NBI Office where he admitted ownership of the attache case and the packages. He was made to sign a receipt for the packages. Larry was charged in court for possession of prohibited drugs. He was convicted. On appeal, he now poses the following issues:
1) The packages are inadmissible in evidence
being the product of an illegal search and
seizure; .
2) Neither is the receipt he signed admissible,
his rights under custodial investigation not
having been observed. Decide.

Answer 42

On the assumption that the issues were timely raised the answers are as follows:
1) The packages are admissible in evidence. The one who opened the packages was the manager of the motel without any interference of the agents of the National Bureau of Investigation. As held in People vs. Marti, 193 SCRA 57, the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures refers to unwarranted intrusion by the government and does not operate as a restraint upon private individuals.
2) The receipt is not admissible in evidence. .

Question 43

No VIII. One day a passenger bus conductor found a man’s handbag left in the bus. When the conductor opened the bag, he found inside a catling card with the owner’s name (Dante Galang) and address, a few hundred peso bills, and a small plastic bag containing a white powdery substance. He brought the powdery substance to the National Bureau of Investigation for laboratory examination and it was determined to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, a prohibited drug. Dante Galang was subsequently traced and found and brought to the NBI Office where he admitted ownership of the handbag and its contents. In the course of the interrogation by NBI agents, and without the presence and assistance of counsel, Galang was made to sign a receipt for the plastic bag and its shabu contents. Galang was charged with illegal possession of prohibited drugs and was convicted.
On appeal he contends that -
(1) The plastic bag and its contents are
inadmissible in evidence being the product
of an illegal search and seizure; (3%) and
(2) The receipt he signed is also inadmissible
as his rights under custodial investigation
were not observed. (2%)
Decide the case with reasons.

Answer 43

A. The plastic bag and its contents are admissible in evidence, since it was not the National Bureau of Investigation but the bus conductor who opened the bag and brought it to the National Bureau of Investigation. As held In People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57 (1991), the constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure is a restraint upon the government. It does not apply so as to require exclusion of evidence which came into the possession of the Government through a search made by a private citizen.
B. It is inadmissible….

Question 44

a) Crack officers of the Anti-Narcotics Unit were assigned on surveillance of the environs of a cemetery where the sale and use of dangerous drugs are rampant. A man with reddish and glassy eyes was walking unsteadily moving towards them but veered away when he sensed the presence of policemen. They approached him, introduced themselves as police officers and asked him what he had clenched in his hand. As he kept mum, the policemen pried his hand open and found a sachet of shabu, a dangerous drug. Accordingly charged in court, the accused objected to the admission in evidence of the dangerous drug because it was the result of an illegal search and seizure. Rule on the objection. (3%)
b) What are the instances when warrantless searches may be effected? (2%)

Answer 44

a) The objection is not tenable. In accordance with Manalili v. Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 400 (1997). since the accused had red eyes and was walking unsteadily and the place is a known hang-out of drug addicts, the police officers had sufficient reason to stop the accused and to frisk him. Since shabu was actually found during the investigation, it could be seized without the need for a search warrant.
b) A warrantless search may be effected in the following cases:
a) Searches incidental to a lawful arrest:
b) Searches of moving vehicles;
c) Searches of prohibited articles in plain view: d) Enforcement of customs law;
e) Consented searches;
f) Stop and frisk (People v. Monaco, 285
SCRA 703 [1998]);
g) Routine searches at borders and ports of
entry (United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S.
606 [1977]); and
h) Searches of businesses in the exercise of
visitorial powers to enforce police
regulations (New York v. Burger, 482 U.S.
691 (1987]).

Question 45

: No. 5: During the recent elections, checkpoints were set up to enforce the election period ban on firearms.
During one such routine search one night, while looking through an open window with a flashlight, the police saw firearms at the backseat of a car partially covered by papers and clothes.
Antonio, owner and driver of the car in question, was charged for violation of the firearms ban. Are the firearms admissible in evidence against him? Explain.
If, upon further inspection by the police, prohibited drugs were found inside the various compartments of Antonio’s car, can the drugs be used in evidence against Antonio if he is prosecuted for possession of prohibited drugs? Explain.

Answer 45

a) Yes, the firearms are admissible in evidence, because they were validly seized. In Valmonte vs. De Villa, 178 SCRA 211 and 185 SCRA 665, the Supreme Court held that checkpoints may be set up to maintain peace and order for the benefit of the public and checkpoints are a security measure against unauthorized firearms. Since the search which resulted in the discovery of the firearms was limited to a visual search of the car, it was reasonable. Because of the ban on firearms, the possession of the firearms was prohibited. Since they were found in plain view in the course of a lawful search, in accordance with the decision in Magancia vs. Palacio, 80 Phil. 770, they are admissible in evidence.
b) No, the drugs cannot be used in evidence against Antonio if he is prosecuted for possession of prohibited drugs. The drugs were found after a more extensive search of the various compartments of the car. As held in Valmonte vs. De Villa, 185 SCRA 665, for such a search to be valid, there must be a probable cause. In this case, there was no probable cause, as there was nothing to indicate that Antonio had prohibited drugs inside the compartments of his car.

R

Question 46

. No. 7: Pursuing reports that great quantities of prohibited drugs are being smuggled at nighttime through the shores of Cavite, the Southern Luzon Command set up checkpoints at the end of the Cavite coastal road to search passing motor vehicles. A 19-year old boy, who finished fifth grade, while driving, was stopped by the authorities at the checkpoint. Without any objection from him, his car was inspected, and the search yielded marijuana leaves hidden in the trunk compartment of the car. The prohibited drug was promptly seized, and the boy was brought to the police station for questioning. Was the search without warrant legal?

Answer 46

No, the search was not valid, because there was no probable cause for conducting the search. As held in Almeda Sanchez vs. United States, 413 U.S. 266, while a moving vehicle can be searched without a warrant, there must still be probable cause. In the case in question, there was nothing to indicate that marijuana leaves were hidden in the trunk of the car. The mere fact that the boy did not object to the inspection of the car does not constitute consent to the search. As ruled in People vs. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1, the failure to object to a warrantless search does not constitute consent, especially in the light of the Yes. The requirement of probable cause differs from case to case. In this one, since the police agents are confronted with large-scale smuggling of prohibited drugs, existence of which is of public knowledge, they can set up checkpoints at strategic places, in the same way that of in a neighborhood a child is kidnapped, it is lawful to search cars and vehicles leaving the neighborhood or village: This situation is also similar to warrantless searches of moving vehicles in customs area, which searches have been upheld. (Papa vs. Mago, 22 SCRA 857 (1968). The rule is based on practical necessity.

Question 47

No. 9: Johann learned that the police were looking for him in connection with the rape of an 18-year old girl, a neighbor. He went to the police station a week later and presented himself to the desk sergeant. Coincidentally. the rape victim was in the premises executing an extrajudicial statement. Johann, along with six (6) other suspects, were placed in a police line- up and the girl pointed to him as the rapist. Johann was arrested and locked up in a cell. Johann was charged with rape in court but prior to arraignment invoked his right to preliminary investigation. This was denied by the judge, and thus, trial proceeded. After the prosecution presented several witnesses, Johann through counsel, invoked the right to bail and filed a motion therefor, which was denied outright by the Judge. Johann now files a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals arguing that: His arrest was not in accordance with law. Decide.

Answer 47

Yes, the warrantless arrest of Johann was not in accordance with law. As held in Go v. Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 138, his case does not fall under the Instances in Rule 113, sec. 5 (a) of the 1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure authorizing warrantless arrests. It cannot be considered a valid warrantless arrest because Johann did not commit a crime in the presence of the police officers, since they were not present when Johann had allegedly raped his neighbor. Neither can It be considered an arrest under Rule 113 sec. 5 (b) which allows an arrest without a warrant to be made when a crime has in fact just been committed and the person making the arrest has personal knowledge offsets indicating that the person to be arrested committed it. Since Johann was arrested a week after the alleged rape, it cannot be deemed to be a crime which “has just been committed”. Nor did the police officers who arrested him have personal knowledge of facts indicating that Johann raped his neighbor.

Question 48

No. 8: On the basis of a verified report and confidential information that various electronic equipment, which were illegally imported into the Philippines, were found in the bodega of the Tikasan Corporation located at 1002 Binakayan St., Cebu City, the Collector of Customs of Cebu issued, in the morning of 2 January 1988, a Warrant of Seizure and Detention against the corporation for the seizure of the equipment. The warrant particularly describes the electronic equipment and specifies the provisions of the Tariff and Customs Code which were violated by the importation.
The warrant was served and implemented in the afternoon of 2 January 1988 by Customs policemen who then seized the described equipment. The inventory of the seized articles was signed by the Secretary of the Tikasan Corporation. The following day, a hearing officer in the Office of the Collector of Customs conducted a hearing on the confiscation of the equipment.
Two days thereafter, the corporation filed with the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus to set aside the warrant, enjoin the Collector and his agents from further proceeding with the forfeiture hearing and to secure the return of the confiscated equipment, alleging therein that the warrant issued is null and void for the reason that, pursuant to Section 2 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution, only a judge may issue a search warrant. In his comment to the petition, the Collector of Customs, through the Office of the Solicitor General, contends that he is authorized under the Tariff and Custom Code to order the seizure of the equipment whose duties and taxes were not paid and that the corporation did not exhaust administrative remedies. Should the petition be granted? Decide.

Answer 48

The petition should not be granted. Under Secs. 2205 and 2208 of the Tariff and Customs Code, customs officials are authorized to enter any warehouse, not used as dwelling, for the purpose of seizing any article which is subject to forfeiture. For this purpose they need no warrant issued by a court. As stated in Viduya vs. Berdiago, 73 SCRA 553. for centuries the seizure of goods by customs officials to enforce the customs laws without need of a search warrant has been recognized.

Question 49

A witnessed two hooded men with baseball bats enter the house of their next door neighbor B. After a few seconds, he heard B shouting, *Huwag Pilo babayaran kita agad.” Then A saw the two hooded men hitting B until the latter fell lifeless. The assailants escaped using a yellow motorcycle with a fireball sticker on it toward the direction of an exclusive village nearby. A reported the incident to P01 Nuval. The following day, PO1 Nuval saw the motorcycle parked in the garage of a house at Sta. Ines Street inside the exclusive village. He inquired with the caretaker as to who owned the motorcycle. The caretaker named the brothers Pilo and Ramon Maradona who were then outside the country. PO1 Nuval insisted on getting inside the garage. Out of fear, the caretaker allowed him. POI Nuval took 2 ski masks and 2 bats beside the motorcycle. Was the search valid? What about the seizure? Decide with reasons

Answer 49

The warrantless search and the seizure was not valid. It was not made as an incident to a lawful warrantless arrest. (People v. Baula, 344 SCRA 663 [2000].) The caretaker had no authority to waive the right of the brothers Pilo and Ramon Maradona to waive their right against an unreasonable search and seizure. (People v. Damaso, 212 SCRA 547 [1992].) The warrantless seizure of the ski masks and bats cannot be justified under the plain view doctrine, because they were seized after an invalid intrusion into the house. (People v. Bolasa, 321 SCRA 459 [1999].)

Question 50

ABC operates an industrial waste processing plant within Laoag City. Occasionally, whenever fluid substances are released through a nearby creek, obnoxious odor is emitted causing dizziness among residents in Barangay La Paz. On complaint of the Punong Barangay, the City Mayor wrote ABC demanding that it abate the nuisance. This was ignored. An invitation to attend a hearing called by the Sangguniang Panlungsod was also declined by the president of ABC. The city government thereupon issued a ceax and desist order to stop the operations of the plant, prompting ABC to file a petition for injunction before the Regional Trial Court, arguing that the city government did not have any power to abate the alleged nuisance. Decide with reasons.

Answer 50

The city government has no power to stop the operations of the plant. Since its operations is not a nuisance per se, the city government cannot abate it extrajudicially. A suit must be filed in court. (AC Enterprises, Inc. v. Frabelle Properties Corporation, 506 SCRA 625 [2006].)