Valid Warrantless Searches in The Philippines

VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCHES IN THE PHILIPPINES
People have the constitutional right “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”
(Constitution, Article III, Section 2). There are, however, exceptions to the requirement
of a search warrant. The following are instances of valid warrantless searches:
Q1. Can a search be made even without a Search Warrant?

Yes, (Manibag v. People, G.R No. 211214, March 20, 2019) The general rule is that a
search and seizure must be carried out through a judicial warrant: otherwise, such
search and seizure violate the Constitution, any evidence resulting from it shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
However, the constitution prescription only covers unreasonable searches and seizures,
Jurisprudence has recognized instances of reasonable warrantless searches and
seizures, which are:
1. WARRANTLESS SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO LAWFUL ARREST

This is recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, and by prevailing
jurisprudence. In searches incident to a lawful arrest, the arrest must precede the
search; generally, the process cannot be reversed. Nevertheless, a search substantially
contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the police have probable
cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search.
2. SEIZURE OF EVIDENCE IN “PLAIN VIEW”

Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a
right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented
as evidence. The plain view doctrine applies when the following requisites concur:
(1) law enforcement officers in search of evidence have a prior justification for an
intrusion or are in a position from which they can view a particular area;
(2) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and
(3) it is immediately apparent to the officers that the item they observed may be
evidence of a crime, a contraband or is otherwise subject to seizure.
Plainview justified mere seizure of evidence without further search.
3. SEARCH OF A MOVING VEHICLE
The rules governing search of a moving vehicle have over the years been steadily
liberalized whenever a moving vehicle is the object of the search on the basis of
practicality. This is so considering that before a warrant can be obtained, the place,
things and persons to be searched must be described to the satisfaction of the issuing
judge – a requirement that borders on the impossible in the case of smuggling effected
by the use of a moving vehicle that can transport contraband from one place to another
with impunity. Further, a warrantless search of a moving vehicle is justified on the
ground that it is not practicable to secure a warrant, because the vehicle can be quickly
moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant is sought. The mere mobility
of these vehicles, however, does not give the police officers unlimited discretion to
conduct indiscriminate searches without warrants if made within the interior of the
territory and in the absence of probable cause; still and all, the important thing is that
there is probable cause to conduct the warrantless search.
4. CONSENTED WARRANTLESS SEARCH

It is fundamental that to constitute a waiver, it must first appear that (1) the right exists;
(2) the person involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the existence of
this right; and (3) that person had an actual intention to relinquish the right.
5. CUSTOMS SEARCH
It has been traditionally understood that persons exercising police authority under the
customs law may effect search and seizure without a search warrant in the enforcement
of customs laws.
6. STOP AND FRISK

A “stop and frisk” situation, also known as the Terry search, refers to a case in which a
police officer approaches a person who is acting suspiciously for the purpose of
investigating possible criminal behavior, in line with the general interest of effective
crime prevention and detection.128 The objective of a stop and frisk search is either to
determine the identity of a suspicious individual or to maintain the status quo
momentarily while the police officer seeks to obtain more information. A basic criterion
is that the police officers, with their personal knowledge, must observe the facts leading
to the suspicion of an illicit act. The concept of “suspiciousness” must be present in the
situation in which the police officers find themselves in.
Checkpoint – allowed in exceptional circumstance to protect the lives of individuals and

ensure their safety. They are also sanctioned in cases where the government’s survival
is in danger.
7. EXIGENT AND EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES

The doctrine of “exigent circumstance” was applied in People v. De Gracia which was
decided during a time of general chaos and disorder brought about by the coup d’etat
attempts of certain rightist elements. Appellant was convicted of illegal possession of
firearms in furtherance of rebellion. He was arrested during a warrantless raid
conducted by the military operatives inside the Eurocar building, wherein they were able
to find and confiscate high-powered bombs, firearms, and other ammunition. According
to the military, they were not able to secure a search warrant due to ongoing disorder,
with Camp Aguinaldo being “mopped up” by the rebel forces and the simultaneous firing
within the vicinity of the Eurocar building, aside from the fact that the courts were
consequently closed.
Admittedly, the absence of a search warrant was not squarely put into issue.
Nevertheless, the Court proceeded to delve into the legality of the raid due to the gravity
of the offense involved. The Court then analyzed the context, taking into consideration
the following facts: (1) the raid was precipitated by intelligence reports and surveillance
on the ongoing rebel activities in the building; (2) the presence of an unusual quantity of
high-powered firearms and explosives in a automobile sales office could not be justified;
(3) there was an ongoing chaos at that time because of the simultaneous and intense
firing within the vicinity of the office and in the nearby Camp Aguinaldo which was under
attack by rebel forces; and (4) the courts in the surrounding areas were obviously
closed and, for that matter, the building and houses therein were deserted.
The Court ruled that the “case falls under one of the exceptions to the prohibition
against a warrantless search. In the first place, the military operatives, taking into
account the facts obtaining in this case, had reasonable ground to believe that a crime
was being committed. There was consequently more than sufficient probable cause to
warrant their action. Furthermore, under the situation then prevailing, the raiding team
had no opportunity to apply for and secure a search warrant from the courts. The trial
judge himself manifested that on December 5, 1989 when the raid was conducted, his
court was closed. Under such urgency and exigency of the moment, a search warrant
could lawfully be dispensed with.”
[The enumeration is provided in People vs. Aruta, G.R. No. 120915, 3 April 1998. The
discussion is a reproduction of the dissenting opinion, Sereno, in Lagman vs.
Medialdea, G.R. No. 231658/G.R. No. 231771/G.R. No. 231774, 4 July 2017]

Valid Warrantless Searches in The Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Valid Warrantless Searches in The Philippines

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Valid Warrantless Searches in The Philippines

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCHES IN THE PHILIPPINES

Q1. Can a search be made even without a Search Warrant?

1. WARRANTLESS SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO LAWFUL ARREST

2. SEIZURE OF EVIDENCE IN “PLAIN VIEW”

4. CONSENTED WARRANTLESS SEARCH

6. STOP AND FRISK

Checkpoint – allowed in exceptional circumstance to protect the lives of individuals and

7. EXIGENT AND EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES

You might also like