SEARCHES AND SEIZURES NOTES

personal in nature, applicable to alien. It

protects even corporations, but to a more
MEMORIZE ART III SEC 2 limited extent because the account books may
be examine by the state in the exercise of the
police power and taxing power.
SEC. 2.The right of the people to be secure in
their persons, houses, papers, and effects Q: What is the rational for the constitutional
against unreasonable searches and seizures of guarantee?
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be A: The purpose of the provision is to protect
inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of the privacy and sanctity of the person against
arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to arbitrary intrusions of state officers. No matter
how humble an abode is, for that person that is his
be determined personally by the judge after
castle, a king or anybody cannot enter the sanctity of
examination under oath or affirmation of the one’s abode or home.
complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place *SIR DISCUSSES ABOUT RIGHT TO
to be searched and the persons or things to be PRIVACY REFER TO RECORDING @
seized. 9:00*

Q: does the provision prohibit all searches and

In Stonehill v Diokno, 42 sets of search seizures?
warrants, subject of which, certain business A: obviously not. Wala na mang aaresto and
records, company books, the officers of wala na ebidensya na makukuha. But only,
unreasonable searches and seizures are
corporation have separate and distinct
prohibited.
personality from the corporation. Doctrine of
Separate Judicial Personality. Individuals in this Q: Is the presumption of regularity of the
case trying to invoke constitutional right performance of the official functions and
available in the consitutition. This can only be duties a defense, as far a violation of Art 3 Sec
availed by person entitled to it, it is personal. 2? May a police officer be excused by simply
invoking presumption of regularity?
The search warrant were issued in relation to
A: in sony music v Judge espanol, Walang
several alleged violations, tariff, penal, etc, kwenta yung constitutional provision if may
internal revenue code. Search warrant must presumption of regularity. It is not a defense if
only be issued to one specific offense. the police officer is accused in violation of this
Q: Does constitutional guarantee only apply to provision. So the presumption is not availing
in the search warrant. It cannot prevail over the
filipino?
constitutional right of the individual. Officers
A: It protects all persons including aliens. Qua cannot use arbitrary methods. That is not a
Chee Gan v. Deportation Board, G.R. No. L- defense. That is not a justification. It cannot
10280, September 30, 1963 . It also applies to prevail over Art 3 Sec 2 the requirements
artificial persons, but limited to certain aspect. provided therein.

In case of BACHE and Co vs Ruiz, a classic Q: Are checkpoints illegal?

case, cited Stonehill v. Diokno, SC recognize A: In case of Valmonte, 1987 the NCR District
the right of corporation to object to command was activate to mission operation of
unreasonable searches and seizures. So it’s setting up territorial defense, of the sparrow
units of the NPA. According to the petitioner,
 SEARCHES AND SEIZURES NOTES

they contend that the establishment of Probable cause is a reasonable ground of

checkpoint a blanket authority to searches and suspicion support by circumstances that a
seizures without search warrant which is cautious man can believe that a crime has been
violation of the constitution. They were committed. Reasonable ground supported
harassed. SC RULED the setting up of the by circumstances sufficiently strong in
questioned checkpoint is a security measure to themselves. In Kho v Langzan?
pursue its mission to effective territorial
defense for the benefit of public. Checkpoint
are for interest of public security. SC took
judicial notice, no need to present evidence, of Q: What are the kinds of probable cause?
the shift to urban due to the increase killings A: There are 3 kinds. Executive and Judicial
etc.
determination of probable cause.
SC checkpoints are susceptible of abuse by the IN executive, done in preliminary investigation
men in uniform, but if discomfort irritation to for the purpose to determine whether an
citizens, when conducted for is a prize for a information should be filed in court or a
peaceful community. person may be indited for an offense. Whether
a criminal charge may be filed in court.
Q: Should checkpoint should be announced?
Executive because in Mendoza v People, It is a
A: SC said is escao, no need. Not only it would
be impractical, it will forwarned to violate the quasi-judicial authority to determine a criminal
ban. Even so, legitimacy of checkpoint and case may be filed in court. This is not proof
regularized manner in which they are operated. beyond reasonable doubt but only probable
cause.
Q: How should police officers conduct a
search of a vehicle at a checkpoint?
A: Only visual searches are allowed. There In judicial determination, made by the judge to
should not be any search or body search of the a certain a warrant of arrest may be issued
occupants of the vehicle. It should be limited against an accused. So here, the judge must
to visual searches. Only flashlights. Pag
satisfy himself that based on the evidence
binababa ka at ikinapkapan ka waiver na yon.
submitted that the person can be put to
In People vs Tiu won Chua, custody to not frustrate justice. If no probable
cause, judge cannot. Judge does not act as a
1) it must be issued upon "probable appellate court, judge has an independent
cause"; assessment the judge is not reviewing the
procedural sense of review the judge or the
(2) probable cause must be determined court is not reviewing the assessment of the
personally by the judge; prosecutor. The judge makes an independent
(3) such judge must examine under oath or from the prosecutor’s findings.
affirmation the complainant and the Executive and Judicial are different. Remedy
witnesses he may produce; and available is Petition for Review in the
(4) the warrant must particularly describe Department of Justice.
the place to be searched and the persons or Q: How determine probable cause?
things to be seized
A: Only the judge.
 SEARCHES AND SEIZURES NOTES

“PROHIBITED MOTION IS JUDICIAL a warrant of arrest w/o assessing the facts and
DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE circumstances then it may be a ground to enjoin
CAUSE BECAUSE IT IS REDUNDANT, IT criminal proceedings.
IS THE DUTY OF THE JUDGE.”
Also, in Hao vs People, SC ruled that the judge is
In the case of khua chi gan, deportation officer task to merely determine the probability not the
cannot issue warrant of arrest but only order certainty of the guilt of the accused. Thus no need
the arrest with a deportation order that attained of conduct a hearing. All is need to determine if it
finality. Bureae of Immigration cannot also is supported by evidence or substantial evidences.
issue a warrant of arrest unless it has a final
order of deportation. Qua Chee Gan v. Q: What is search warrant?
Deportation Board, A: RULE 126 SEC 6 of the Rules of Court,
mere affidavits of complainant and witness is
not sufficient there must be searching question
In Borlongan v Pena, Soliven v. Makasiar, The and answers made by a judge. In determining a
SC clarified that the words “personal search warrant, there must be a searching
determination” does not mean that the judges questions and answers. Attach them to the
are oblidge to conduct personal examination of record. Such written desposition for a judge to
the complainant and witnesses themselves for properly determine the existence and non-
the purposes themselves. existence of probable cause. If found to be
The judge may personally evaluate the findings false.
of the The searching question, is not merely routinary
or performa, but also exhaustive. The judge
(1) personally evaluate the report and the
must make own inquiry of the intent and
supporting documents submitted by
justification of the application. THERE MUST
the fiscal regarding the existence of
BE SEARCHING QUESTIONS AND
probable cause and, on the basis
ANSWER. NOT JUST MERE READING
thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or
OF AFFIDAVITS. BUT WRITTEN
DISPOSTITION, AND A PROBING AND
(2) if on the basis thereof he finds no
EXHAUSTIVE REMEDY MADE TO THE
probable cause, he may disregard the
APPLICANT.
fiscal's report and require the
submission of supporting affidavits of Particularity in order to avoid a general
witnesses to aid him in arriving at a warrant. World wide web corporation, defined
conclusion as to the existence of there. It gives officer the discretion which
probable cause. items to take. This is important. It must be
specific that which items are subject to
seizures, as far arrest warrant as particular to
The judge cannot blindly follow the prosecutor of the person to be arrest.
the determination of the probable cause. This
pertains to a warrant of arrests. In fact, if this WATCH THE GOOD WIFE (NETFLIX)
requiesment is brushed aside, this maybe a Q: Is a warrant a criminal action?
ground the aggrivied party the cause of injunction.
If this guarantee is not satisfied, if the judge issues
 SEARCHES AND SEIZURES NOTES

A: World Wide Web Corporation v. Case of SPO4 LAUD, one specific offense
People. No there must by Sc said an rule, the subject is murder. Question: Suppose
application for search warrant is a special there is a considerable length of time of the
criminal process rather than a criminal action. offense and
It is not an action but merely a process issued SC said in LAUD, that considerable length in
by the court by auxiliary jurisdiction. time attending the search warrant’s application
Original jurisdiction vs Auxiliary jurisdiction does not by on itself the veracity of the claims
or testimony of the witness presented. SC in
In the World Wide Case, requirement of this case, gave credence to the reasoning of the
particularity is fulfilled is when the items of the Court of the Appeals that the delay maybe
search warrant bare a direct relation to the accounted as a fear of appraisal to get involve
offense which the warrant is sought. in the criminal case. Bahala kayo jan. THIS
DOES NOT NEGATE THE EXISTENCE
OF PROBABLE CAUSE.
THE EXISTENCE THEREOF, FACTS
TECHNICAL DESCRIPTION AND CIRCUMSTANCES MUST BE
Q: Is the description required to be technical? DETERMINED BY THE JUDGE
TOGETHER WITH THE VARIABLES
A: Vallego vs CA, technical presition of COMPLICATION OF THE
decription is not required but only reasonable SENSIBILITIES ATTENDING A
particularity that the warrant should not be a CRIMINAL CASE.
roaming circulation.
This as instructive as particularity of the place
In Intellectual Property Rights or Cyber Crime to be place. A description is suffiecient if the
Law, illegal access, e commerce law, even the officer with the warrant, can identify the place
police cannot describe a technical description. and distinguish it.
Ex: Mga gamot, paano identify ng mga police, Q: What if there are several counts of particular
di need ang technical requisites. Such offense, ex. 6 counts of murder?
reasonable particularization is required not
technical precision. The law does not required A: That is the STILL subject of 1 search
precise minute details, that will leave the warrant. That violates the 1 offense rule.
searching authorities to doubt. LAUG case. Several counts of the offense and
the search warrant should not be confused the
A search warrant fulfills the regularity of number of counts to number of offense. 1
description of that bear the relate relation to OFFENSE IS MURDER BUT SEVERAL
which the warrant is being used. As long as COUNT. IT STILL COMPLIES WITH THE
they bear direct relation to the offense charged. 1 OFFENSE RULE.
TECHNICAL PRECISION IS NOT Q; How about the description of the person
REQUIRED. searched?
In PLDT vs RAZON, the rules required in A: People vs Tiu won Chua, It is still valid.
connection to one specific offense, to prevent Mistake in the name does not invalidate the
scatter warrant. search warrant. Because in this case, the person
 SEARCHES AND SEIZURES NOTES

who did the surveillance has the personal Section 7. Right to break door or window to
knowledge of the person that should be effect search. — The officer, if refused
admittance to the place of directed search
searched.
after giving notice of his purpose and
Q: How about a john doe or jane doe warrant? authority, may break open any outer or inner
door or window of a house or any part of a
Would this violate particularly? house or anything therein to execute the
A: As long it contains a description personae warrant or liberate himself or any person
lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained
that would identify the accuse without therein. (6)
difficulty. That would enable the officer to
identify the accuse without difficulty. Di need Section 8. Search of house, room, or premise
kumpletohin. As long as there is sufficient to be made in presence of two witnesses. —
description personae. No search of a house, room, or any other
premise shall be made except in the presence
of the lawful occupant thereof or any member
of his family or in the absence of the latter,
two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion
NALLA VS JUDGE residing in the same locality. (7a)

BARROSO AUGUST 7 2003 Section 9. Time of making search. — The

READ THIS FUCKING warrant must direct that it be served in the day
time, unless the affidavit asserts that the
CASE ADDITIONAL TO property is on the person or in the place
ordered to be searched, in which case a
SINABI NI SIR add also UY direction may be inserted that it be served at
any time of the day or night. (8)
vs BIR 2000.
Section 10. Validity of search warrant. — A
There are several items in the search warrant. search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days
Some of which did not require the general from its date. Thereafter it shall be void. (9a)
warrant but there are some sufficient warrant.
Will that invalidate it? Section 11. Receipt for the property seized.
— The officer seizing property under the
A: General description will not invalidate the warrant must give a detailed receipt for the
entire warrant if other items had been same to the lawful occupant of the premises in
whose presence the search and seizure were
particularly described. UY VS BIR. In this case, made, or in the absence of such occupant,
while there is a portion did not meet the must, in the presence of at least two
requirement, the search warrant is severable witnesses of sufficient age and discretion
and that items not particularly described may residing in the same locality, leave a receipt in
be cut off or severed. THIS DOES NOT the place in which he found the seized
property. (10a)
INVALIDATE THE ENTIRE WARRANT.
MANNER BY WHICH A SEARCH Section 12. Delivery of property and inventory
thereof to court; return and proceedings
WARRANT IS CONDUCTED thereon. — (a) The officer must forthwith
RULE 126 SEC 7 TO 12 OF THE RULES OF deliver the property seized to the judge who
issued the warrant, together with a true
COURT inventory thereof duly verified under oath.
 SEARCHES AND SEIZURES NOTES

(b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE.
warrant, the issuing judge shall ascertain if the
return has been made, and if none, shall PEOPLE VS PUNZALAN, WHAT IS THE
summon the person to whom the warrant was BARANGAY OFFICIALS ARE NOT
issued and require him to explain why no PRESENT, but the accused are present. It only
return was made. If the return has been made,
the judge shall ascertain whether section 11 of
applies if the owner are absent, section 8.
this Rule has been complained with and shall That’s the only time that two witness, that the
require that the property seized be delivered said requirement may apply.
to him. The judge shall see to it that
subsection (a) hereof has been complied with. Bulauitan v. People, SC said only
upon the absence of the lawful
(c) The return on the search warrant shall be occupant, that his presence may be
filed and kept by the custodian of the log book
on search warrants who shall enter therein the
replaced by 2 witness of sufficient
date of the return, the result, and other actions age residing in the same locality.
of the judge. Violation of this rules, violates the
spirit and letter of the law, thus
A violation of this section shall constitute whatever obtained as a result of the
contempt of court.(11a)
search will be inadmissible.
Q: how long is a search warrant? SC invalidated the search and the results are
A: 10 days. If April 2 then April 12. After that inadmissible due to departure of the procedure.
the search warrant is void. People v. Court of appeals, the
People v. Huang Zhen Hua, The police suspect is not around but the wife
may only break open any outer door refuse to witness the conduct of the
only after they are refused to be search. Ayoko baka kung ano Makita
entered in directed search. THE ko jan, So she refused, later on,
KNOCK AND ANNOUNCE would the suspect that the rule
PRINCIPLE. Which is embodied in section 7 rule 126 was not followed?
anglo-american origin in governing A: THE SC held that there was no violation if
the method of entering a dwelling. the wife and even the maid refused to witness
There must be notice and demand the search. The regularity of the search is
first from the officer serving the evidence in the orderly searched. That does not
search warrant. SC held lawful entry invalidate the search.
is an indispensable predicate of a
Q: what is the suspects are there but they were
reasonbale search. THE SEARCH
not allowed to witness the search? They were
WILL BE NOT VALID IF THE ENTRY
just place in the sala or the sofa. But they were
IS ILLEGAL.
there. Would there be sufficient compliance
It is important to break something, any with the rules?
opening there, the knock and announce
A: SC held no. People v Del Castillo, they
principle must be complied with. There must
should be the one who should surveilling the
be notice and demand. The principle can be
search not the barangay tanod. LAWFUL
traced in England 1275.
OCCUPANTS or their IMMEDIATE
MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY. Here they
 SEARCHES AND SEIZURES NOTES

were prevented in joining the search, they are (b) the discovery of evidence in plain
ask to stay in particular part if the house. The view is inadvertent;
outcomes are different. In Del Castillo there
was no valid search, In Court of Appeals, there (c) it is immediately apparent to the
was a valid search by the refusal of the wife. officer that the item he observes may be
People vs. Go, the return must have detailed evidence of a crime, contraband or
receipt of the property received and delivery of otherwise subject to seizure. The law
the items seized to the court. The inventory enforcement officer must lawfully make
must be made under oath. If there is no oath, an initial intrusion or properly be in a
there will be contempt. SECTION 12 RULE
position from which he can particularly
126. IF THERE IS A REQUIREMENT
THERE NO FOLLOWED THEY WILL BE view the area.
CHARGED WITH CONTEMPT OF
COURT.
A "stop and frisk" search is de􀀼ned in
The 1987 Constitution states that a search and
consequent seizure must be carried out with a People v. Chua 107 as "the act of a
judicialwarrant; otherwise, it becomes police o􀀼cer to stop a citizen on the
unreasonable and any evidence obtained street, interrogate him, and pat him for
therefrom shall be inadmissiblefor any purpose weapon(s) or contraband
in any proceeding. Said proscription, however,
admits of exceptions, namely: Warrantless Search incidental to a lawful
arrest
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful
arrest; In a search incidental to a lawful arrest,
2. Search of evidence in “plain view;” as the precedent arrest determines the
validity of the incidental search, the
3. Search of a moving vehicle;
legality of the arrest is questioned in a
4. Consented warrantless search; large majority of these cases, e.g.,
5. Customs search; whether an arrest was merely used as a
pretext for conducting a search. In this
6. Stop and Frisk; and
instance, the law requires that there 􀀼rst
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances be arrest before a search can be made—
The 'plain view' doctrine applies when the process cannot be reversed. At
the following requisites concur: bottom, assuming a valid arrest, the
arresting o􀀼cer may search the person
(a) the law enforcement offcer in search of the arrestee and the area within which
of the evidence has a prior justification the latter may reach for a weapon or for
for an intrusion or is in a position from evidence to destroy, and seize any
which he can view a particular area; money or property found which was
used in the commission of the crime, or
 SEARCHES AND SEIZURES NOTES

the fruit of the crime, or that which may weapons concealed about him. Finally, a
be used as evidence, or which might "stop-and-frisk" serves a two-fold
furnish the arrestee with the means of interest:
escaping or committing violence.
(1) the general interest of effective crime
Stop and Frisk prevention and detection, which
underlies the recognition that a police
We merely hold today that where a
officer may, under appropriate
police officer observes unusual conduct
circumstances and in an appropriate
which leads him reasonably to conclude
manner, approach a person for purposes
in light of his experience that criminal
of investigating possible criminal
activity may be afoot and that the
behavior even without probable cause;
persons with whom he is dealing may be
and
armed and presently dangerous, where
in the course of investigating this (2) the more pressing interest of safety
behavior he identi􀀼es himself as a and self-preservation which permit the
policeman and makes reasonable police o􀀼cer to take steps to assure
inquiries, and where nothing in the himself that the person with whom he
initial stages of the encounter serves to deals is not armed with a deadly weapon
dispel his reasonable fear for his own or that could unexpectedly and fatally be
others' safety, he is entitled for the used against the police officer.
protection of himself and others in the
area to conduct a carefully limited search
of the outer clothing of such persons in
an attempt to discover weapons which
might be used to assault him. Such a
search is a reasonable search under the
Fourth amendment

Other notable points of Terry are that

while probable cause is not required to
conduct a "stop-and-frisk," it
nevertheless holds that mere suspicion
or a hunch will not validate a "stop-and-
frisk." A genuine reason must exist, in
light of the police o􀀼cer's experience
and surrounding conditions, to warrant
the belief that the person detained has