Page | 1

The Right Against

Unreasonable Searches & Seizures:
A BASIC GUIDE
By Atty. Alexis F. Medina 1
San Sebastian College, Institute of Law
Sections 2 and 3 (2) of Article III of the Constitution provide:
"SECTION 2. 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.
SEC 3. x x x
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of x x x the preceding
section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

GUIDE OUTLINE
1. How to determine if the search or seizure violates the
Constitutional prohibition
2. How to determine if the search or seizure is a government
action
3. How to determine if the search or seizure is unreasonable
4. How to determine the legal consequences of the unlawful
search or seizure

Atty. Alexis F. Medina. AB Political Science, University of the Philippines (UP),

Diliman; Order of the Purple Feather (OPF), UP, College of Law; Valedictorian, San
Sebastian College, Manila, Institute of Law; Senior Associate, Ponce Enrile Reyes &
Manlastas Law Offices (Pecabar)

Page | 2

I.
DOES THE SEARCH OR SEIZURE VIOLATE THE
CONSTITUTION?
Protection guaranteed: Immunity of persons, not places
The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is the immunity
of one's person, which includes his residence, his papers, and other
possessions. The guarantee refers to "the right of personal security" of the
individual. What is sought to be protected against the State's unlawful
intrusion are persons, not places. To conclude otherwise would lead to the
absurd logic that for a person to be immune against unreasonable searches
and seizures, he must be in his home or office, within a fenced yard or a
private place. The Bill of Rights belongs as much to the person in the street
as to the individual in the sanctuary of his bedroom. 2

Basic Requirements for the constitutional prohibition to apply

The search or seizure violates the prohibition under Section 2,
Article III of the 1987 Constitution, if it is:
1. a government or state action; and
2. unreasonable
Requirement No.1: Government/State action
Rule: The search or seizure must be an action by the
government or state, otherwise the Constitutional prohibition against
unreasonable searches and seizures and the exclusionary rule will not
apply. 3
The protection against unreasonable searches and seizures
proscribes only governmental action. It is wholly inapplicable to a
search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private
individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the
participation or knowledge of any governmental official." 4
2

People v. Valdez, 25 September 2000

People v. Bangcarawan, 384 SCRA 525, 11 July 2002; People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57, 18
January 1991
3

Page | 3
Reason: The constitutional proscription against unlawful
searches and seizures applies as a restraint directed only against the
government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law.
It could only be invoked against the State. 5 This is because Bill of
Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the state,
and not the relation between private individuals. 6

Requirement No. 2: Unreasonable Search or Seizure

What the constitution
searches and seizures.

prohibits

are

unreasonable

The constitutional guarantee is not a blanket prohibition against all

searches and seizures as it operates only against unreasonable searches
and seizures. Searches and seizures are as a rule unreasonable unless
authorized by a validly issued search warrant or warrant of arrest. 7
Reasonableness is the touchstone of the validity of a government search or
intrusion. 8
Reasonable searches and seizures are allowed
The Constitutional proscription against unreasonable searches and
seizures does not, of course, forestall reasonable searches and seizure. What
constitutes a reasonable or even an unreasonable search in any particular
case is purely a judicial question, determinable from a consideration of the
circumstances involved. 9

United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984). Note that in the United States, the State
Action Doctrine was originally applied to First Amendment rights (freedom of speeh, religion,
association, assembly) and Fourteenth Amendment rights (due process and equal protection).
5

People v. Bangcarawan, 384 SCRA 525, 11 July 2002; People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57, 18
January 1991; see also People v. Hipol, 407 SCRA 179, 22 July 2003)
6
See People v. Marti 18, 193 SCRA 57 January 1991; People v. Mendoza, 301 SCRA 66, 18
January 1999; Burdeau v. McDowell (256 US 465 (1921), State v. Bryan (457 P.2d 661 [1968];
Walker v. State (429 S.W.2d 121), Bernas v. US (373 F.2d 517)
7
People v. Libnao, 395 SCRA 407, 20 January 2003
8
Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, 570 SCRA 411, 03 November 2008
9

People v. Chua Ho San, 17 June 1999

Page | 4

II.
IS THE SEARCH OR SEIZURE A GOVERNMENT ACTION?
Rule: A search by a private individual, without the
intervention of the police, is not covered by the constitutional
prohibition
If the search is made at the behest or initiative of the proprietor of a
private establishment for its own and private purposes, and without the
intervention of police authorities, the right against unreasonable search and
seizure cannot be invoked.10
Thus, in People v. Bangcarawan, 11the baggage of the accused was
searched by the vessel security personnel. It was only after they found shabu
inside the suitcase that they called the Philippine Coast Guard for assistance.
The Supreme Court ruled that the search and seizure of the suitcase and the
contraband items were carried out without government intervention, and
hence, the search did not come under the Constitutional prohibition, and the
seized shabu was deemed admissible as evidence.

III.
IS THE SEARCH OR SEIZURE UNREASONABLE?
Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
1. Unreasonable:
warrant

Searches

and

seizures

without

A search and seizure must be carried through or with a judicial warrant;

otherwise, such search and seizure becomes unreasonable. 12 Searches,
10

People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57, 18 January 1991

384 SCRA 525, 11 July 2002
12
People v. Nuevas, 516 SCRA 463, 22 February 2007; People v. Compacion, 361 SCRA 540, 20
July 2001; People v. Valdez, 345 SCRA 357, 25 September 2000; People v. Tudtud, 482 SCRA
142, 26 September 2003; Pita v. Court of Appeals, 178 SCRA 362,05 October 1989; People v.
Chua Ho San, 308 scra 432, 17 June 1999; People v. Barros, 231 SCRA 557, 565
11

Page | 5
seizures and arrests are normally unreasonable unless authorized by a validly
issued search warrant or warrant of arrest. 13
No arrest, search and seizure can be made without a valid warrant
issued by a competent judicial authority. The Constitution guarantees the
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects
against unreasonable searches and seizures. 14
The Constitution bars State intrusions to a person's body, personal
effects or residence except if conducted by virtue of a valid search warrant
issued in compliance with the procedure outlined in the Constitution and
reiterated in the Rules of Court; otherwise such search and seizure become
unreasonable within the meaning of the aforementioned constitutional
provision. 15

2.
Unreasonable:
invalid warrant

Searches

and

seizures

under

an

If the search warrant is null and void, the searches and seizures made
therein are illegal.16
The search warrant must strictly comply with the requirements of the
Constitution and the statutory provisions. Failure to comply with any
requirement mandated by law for the issuance of a search warrant renders
such search warrant invalid, the subsequent search unlawful, and evidence
obtained therefrom inadmissible. 17
If the search warrant is null and void, the searches and seizures made
therein are illegal.18
Requisites for a valid search warrant
(1) It must be issued upon probable cause;
(2) The probable cause must be determined by the judge
himself and not by the applicant or any other person;

13

David v. Macapagal-Arroyo 489 SCRA 162, 03 May 2006

14

People v. Valdez, 03 March 1999

15
People v. Chua Ho San, 17 June 1999; People v. Barros 231 SCRA 557, 565
16
See Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383, 19 June 1967; Bache and Co., (Phil.) Inc. v. Ruiz, 37
SCRA 823, 27 February 1971
17
See People v. Mamaril 22, 420 SCRA 662, January 2004; PICOP v. Asuncion, 307 SCRA 253,
19 May 1999; See also Asian Surety v. Herrera, 54 SCRA 312, 20 December 1973; Alvarez v.
CFI Tayabas, 64 Phil 33, 29 January 1937; Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800, December
1984
18

See Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383, 19 June 1967; Bache and Co., (Phil.) Inc. v.
Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823, 27 February 1971

Page | 6
(3) In the determination of probable cause, the judge must
examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and such
witnesses as the latter may produce; and
(4) The warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be
searched and persons or things to be seized. 19
A search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in
connection with one specific offense 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 things to be seized which
may be anywhere in the Philippines. 20
Probable cause for a search warrant: Defined
The existence of such facts and circumstances which would lead
a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has
been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the
offense are in the place to be searched. 21
Probable cause: How determined
To be determined personally by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and his witnesses he may
produce. 22
Probable cause: Personal knowledge required
Absent the element of personal knowledge by the applicant or
his witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of a search warrant
may be justified, the warrant is deemed not based on probable cause
and is a nullity, its issuance being, in legal contemplation, arbitrary. 23
Search warrant does not justify search & seizure of any
evidence
A search warrant is not a sweeping authority for a fishing
expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or
articles relating to a crime. Nothing should be left to the discretion of
the officer executing the warrant. 24
Test of particularity of description
A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things
19

Section 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution; Hon Ne Chan v. Honda Motor, 541 SCRA
249, 19 December 2007
20

Section 4, Rule 126, Rules of Court

Sony Music v. Espanol, et al., 453 SCRA 360, 14 March 2005; Nala v. Barroso, 408 SCRA 529,
07 August 2003; Santos v. Pryce Gases, 538 SCRA 474, 23 November 2007)
22
Section 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution
21

23
24

(Sony Music v. Espanol, et al., 453 SCRA 360, 14 March 2005)

(Unilab. Isip, 461 SCRA 575, 28 June 2005; People v. Francisco, 387 SCRA 569, 22 August
2002)

Page | 7
to be seized when the description therein is as specific as the
circumstances will ordinarily allow; or when the description expresses a
conclusion of fact not of law by which the warrant officer may be
guided in making the search and seizure; or when the things described
are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which
the warrant is being issued. 25

GENERAL RULE:
A search or seizure by the government without a
judicial warrant is unreasonable and thus, illegal.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE:

Warrantless searches that are reasonable and,
thus, valid
The Constitutional proscription against unreasonable searches and
seizures does not forestall reasonable searches and seizure. What
constitutes a reasonable or even an unreasonable search in any particular
case is purely a judicial question, determinable from a consideration of the
circumstances involved. 26
In the following instances, the search is reasonable even without a
warrant:
(1)

search incident to a lawful arrest;

(2)

search of a moving motor vehicle;

(3)

search in violation of customs laws;

(4)

seizure of evidence in plain view;

(5)
search when the accused himself waives his right against
unreasonable searches and seizures (consented search);
(6)

25

stop and frisk (Terry search); and

Bache and Co., (Phil.) Inc. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823, 27 February 1971; Columbia pictures versus
court of Appeals, 262 SCRA 219, 20 September 1996; Uy v. BIR, 345 SCRA 36, 20 October
2000)
26
People v. Chua Ho San, 308 SCRA 432, 17 June 1999

Page | 8
(7)

search arising from exigent and emergency circumstances. 27

Other warrantless searches that are reasonable and valid

In People v. Agulay 28, the Supreme Court enumerated other instances
of valid warrantless searches, specifically:
- searches of vessels and aircraft for violation of immigration,
customs and drug laws;
-

searches of automobiles at borders or constructive borders;

and
- searches of buildings and premises to enforce fire, sanitary,
and building regulations.
In People v. Johnston, the Supreme Court also held valid a warrantless
search pursuant to routine airport security procedure, which is
authorized under Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6235. 29
Under Section 6 of Commonwealth Act 613 or the Philippine
Immigration Act as amended, immigration inspectors are empowered to go
aboard and search for aliens on any vessel or other conveyance in which they
believe aliens are being brought into the Philippines.

VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCHES & SEIZURES:

A CLOSER LOOK
(1) Search incident to a lawful arrest
27

People v. Tudtud, 412 SCRA 427, 26 September 2006; Epie v. Ulat-Marredo, 518 SCRA 641,
22 March 2007; People v. Sarap 399 SCRA 503, March 26, 2003; People v. Nuevas, 516 SCRA
463, 22 February 2007; People v. Valdez, 304 SCRA 140, 03 March 1999
28
26 September 2008
29

People v. Johnston 348 SCRA 526; People v. Macalaba 20 January 2003

Page | 9
Purpose of search
A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or
anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of
an offense without a search warrant. 30
There must first be a valid arrest before a search
The law requires that there first be a valid arrest before a search can
be madethe process cannot be reversed. 31

Limits to the scope of search incidental to a lawful arrest

As to Area: Immediate Control Test
The seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons must be either on the
person of the one arrested or within the area of his immediate control. The
phrase within the area of his immediate control means the area from within
which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. 32
Should be limited to the area within which the person to be arrested
can reach for a weapon or for evidence that he or she can destroy. 33
As to Subject
As to subject, the search must only be with respect to the person of the
suspect, and things that may be seized from him are limited to "dangerous
weapons" or "anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the
offense." 34
A gun on a table or in a drawer in front of one who is arrested can be
as dangerous to the arresting officer as one concealed in the clothing of the
person arrested. 35
As to Time
The search must be contemporaneous with the lawful arrest. The
search must be conducted at about the time of the arrest or immediately
thereafter and only at the place where the suspect was arrested, or the
premises or surroundings under his immediate control. 36

(2) Search of a moving motor vehicle

30

Section 12, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure; People v. Che Chun Ting,
328 SCRA 592, 21 March 2000
31
People v. Binad Sy Chua, 396 SCRA 657, 04 February 2003; People v. Molina, 352 SCRA 174,
19 February 2001
32
Valeroso v. Court of Appeals, 3 September 2009, G.R. No. 16481; People v. Cubcubin, 360 SCRA
690, 10 July 2001
33
People v. Estella, 395 SCRA 553, 21 January 2003
34
People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592, 21 March 2000
35

Valeroso v. Court of Appeals, 3 September 2009, G.R. No. 16481; People v. Estella, 395 SCRA 553,

21 January 2003
36
People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592, 21 March 2000

P a g e | 10

Limited car inspection: Valid even without probable cause

Routine inspections of motor vehicles are normally permissible in the
following instances: (1) where the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a
vacant vehicle which is parked on the public fair ground; (2) simply looks into
a vehicle; (3) flashes a light therein without opening the car's doors; (4) where
the occupants are not subjected to a physical or body search; (5) where the
inspection of the vehicles is limited to a visual search or visual inspection; and
(6) where the routine check is conducted in a fixed area. 37
Visual search: Probable cause not required
When there is no probable cause, peace officers are limited to routine
checks where the examination of the vehicle is limited to visual inspection. 38
Extensive search: Probable cause required
When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search, such
would be constitutionally permissible only if the officers made it upon
probable cause, i.e., upon a belief, reasonably arising out of circumstances
known to the seizing officer, that an automobile or other vehicle contains as
item, article or object which by law is subject to seizure and destruction, 39 or
instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be
searched. 40
Extensive search must be done only when it is not practicable
to secure a warrant
Warrantless search of a moving vehicle is allowed only when it is not
practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out
of the area or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. 41
Search of moving vehicle principle applies to fishing vessels
and boats
Search and seizure without search warrant of vessels and aircrafts for
violations of customs laws have been the traditional exception to the
constitutional requirement of a search warrant. It is rooted on the recognition
that a vessel and an aircraft, like motor vehicles, can be quickly moved out of
the locality or jurisdiction in which the search warrant must be sought and
secured. The same exception ought to apply to seizures of fishing vessels and
boats breaching fishery laws. 42

(3) Search in violation of customs laws

Enforcers of customs and tariff laws are authorized to effect searches,
seizures, and arrests, and to make seizure, among others, of any cargo,
articles or other movable property when the same may be subject to forfeiture
or liable for any fine imposed under customs and tariff laws. They could
37
38
39
40
41
42

Caballes v. Court of Appeals, 15 January 2002

People v. Libnao, 325 SCRA 407, 20 January 2003
People v. Libnao, 325 SCRA 407, 20 January 2003
People v. Lapitaje, 392 SCRA 674, 19 February 2003
People v. Lapitaje, 392 SCRA 674, 19 February 2003
Hizon v. CA, 265 SCRA 517, 13 December 1996

P a g e | 11
lawfully open and examine any box, trunk, envelope or other container
wherever found when he had reasonable cause to suspect the presence
therein of dutiable articles introduced into the Philippines contrary to law; and
likewise to stop, search and examine any vehicle, beast or person reasonably
suspected of holding or conveying such articles.
Based on Section 2203 of the Tariff and Customs Code, except in the
case of the search of a dwelling house, persons exercising police authority
under the customs law may effect search and seizure without a search
warrant in the enforcement of customs laws. 43 (emphases supplied)

(4) Seizure of evidence in plain view (plain view

doctrine)
Under the plain view doctrine, objects failing in plain view of an officer
who has a right to be in that position to have that view are subject to seizure
even without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. 44

Elements of a valid seizure of evidence in plain view

(a) A prior valid intrusion in which the police are legally present in the
pursuit of their official duties;
(b) The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have
the right to be where they are;
(c) The evidence must be immediately apparent;
(d) Plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further
search. 45
Evidence in plain view may be seized, although not described
in the search warrant 46
Meaning of immediately apparent
At the time of the discovery of the object or facts or at the moment of
seizure, the officer has probable cause to connect the object to criminal
activity. 47
Meaning of inadvertence
The officer must not have known in advance of the location of the
evidence and intend to seize it. Discovery is not anticipated. 48

43

Papa v. Mago, 22 SCRA 257, 28 February 1968; see also Salvador v, People, 463 SCRA 489,
15 July 2005
44

Abelita v. Doria, 14 August 2009; People v. Doria, 301 SCRA 668,22 January 1999; People v.
Lagman, 573 SCRA 225, 08 December 2008
45
People v. Nuevas, 576 SCRA 463; 22 February 2007; People v. Compacion, 361 SCRA 540, 20
July 2001
46
Unilab v. Isip, 461 SCRA 575, 28 June 2005
47
48

Unilab v. Isip, 461 SCRA 575, 28 June 2005

Unilab v. Isip, 461 SCRA 575, 28 June 2005

P a g e | 12
(5) Search when the accused himself waives his right
against unreasonable searches and seizures (consented
search)
The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal
right which may be waived expressly or impliedly. 49
Consent must be unequivocal, specific and intelligently given
The consent to the search must be voluntary, unequivocal, specific,
and intelligently given, uncontaminated by any duress or coercion. The
consent to a search must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. 50
Requisites for a valid waiver
In case of consented searches or waiver of the constitutional guarantee
against obtrusive searches, it must first appear that (1) the right exists; (2)
the person involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the
existence of such right; and (3) the said person had an actual intention to
relinquish the right. 51
Peaceful submission is not consent
Peaceful submission to a search or seizure is not a consent or an
invitation thereto, but is merely a demonstration of regard for the supremacy
of the law. 52 The accused is not to be presumed to have waived the unlawful
search simply because he failed to object. 53
The presumption is against waiver of constitutional right.

54

(6) Stop and frisk (Terry search)

Scope
Limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons.

55

When stop and frisk is valid

Where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him
reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be
afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and
dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies
himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in
the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his
own or others safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in
the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such
49
50

51

People v. Cubcubin, 360 SCRA 690, 10 July 2001

People v. Nuevas 22 February 2007, 576 SCRA 463

People v. Nuevas, 576 SCRA 463, 22 February 2007

People v. Nuevas, 576 SCRA 463, 22 February 2007; People v. Comnpacion, 361 SCRA 540,
20 July 2009
53
People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1; People v. Compacion, 361 SCRA 540, 20 July 2001
54
People v. Burgos 144 SCRA 1, 1986; People v. Compacion, 361 SCRA 540, 20 July 2001;
People v. Aruta 288 SCRA 626
55
People v. Binad Sy Chua, 396 SCRA 657, 04 February 2003; Malacat v. People, 283 SCRA
159, 12 December 1997
52

P a g e | 13
persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault
him. 56
Mere suspicion is not enough for a stop-and-frisk; there
must be genuine reason to believe that the person has a concealed
weapon
Mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a stop-and-frisk. A
genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officers experience and
surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person detained has
weapons concealed about him. 57

(7)
Search arising
circumstances

from

exigent

and

emergency

In People v. De Gracia (233 SCRA 716, [1994]), there were intelligence

reports that the building was being used as headquarters by the RAM during
a coup detat. A surveillance team was fired at by a group of armed men
coming out of the building and the occupants of said building refused to open
the door despite repeated requests. There were large quantities of explosives
and ammunitions inside the building. Nearby courts were closed and general
chaos and disorder prevailed. The existing circumstances sufficiently showed
that a crime was being committed. In short, there was probable cause to
effect a warrantless search of the building. 58

Probable cause:
The basic requirement in all warrantless searches
In People v Aruta 3 April 1998, the Supreme Court declared that the
essential requisite of probable cause must still be satisfied before a
warrantless search and seizure can be lawfully conducted. In searches and
seizures effected without a warrant, it is necessary for probable cause to be
present.

IV.
WHAT ARE THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF
AN UNLAWFUL SEARCH OR SEIZURE?
1.
56

The exclusionary rule applies: Evidence obtained is

People v. Binad Sy Chua, 396 SCRA 657, 04 February 2003; Malacat v. People, 283 SCRA
159, 12 December 1997
57
People v. Binad Sy Chua, 396 SCRA 657, 04 February 2003; Malacat v. People, 283 SCRA
159, 12 December 1997
58
also cited in People v. Aruta, 288 SCRA 626, 03 April 1998

P a g e | 14
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
If a search or seizure is unreasonable, any evidence obtained
therefrom is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. 59
Thus, evidence obtained during an illegal search or
seizure . . .
(a)
accused.

is

inadmissible

to

prove

the

guilt

of the

60

(b)
cannot
evidence.

be

used

to

legally

obtain

other

Evidence obtained from/as a result of evidence obtained in an

illegal search would also be inadmissible for being fruit of the
poisonous tree.
Under, the exclusionary rule known as the "fruit of the poisonous
tree," once the primary source (the "tree") is shown to have been
unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the "fruit")
derived from it is also inadmissible. The rule is based on the principle
that evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be used to gain
other evidence because the originally illegally obtained evidence taints
all evidence subsequently obtained.61

(c)
cannot be used to justify a subsequent
warrantless arrest. 62
2.
Even if the search was unlawful, and the evidence
obtained was excluded, the court may still convict the accused
on the basis of other pieces of admissible evidence. 63

59

Sections 2, and 3 [2], Art. III, 1987 Constitution; People v. Nuevas, 576 SCRA 463, 22
February 2007; See also People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592, 21 March 2000; People v.
Sarap, 399 SCRA 503, 26 March 2003; People v. Bangcarawan, 384 SCRA 525, 11 July 2002
60

See People v. Sarap, 399 SCRA 503, 26 March 2003; People v. Francisco, 387 SCRA 592, 22
August 2002; People v. Valdez, 341 SCRA 253, 25 September 2000; People v. Asis, 391 SCRA
108, 15 October 2002
61

People v. Alicando 321 Phil 656, 12 December 1995; People v. Domantay 307 SCRA 1, 09
May 1999; People v. Conde, 356 SCRA 415, 10 April 2001
62
63

See People v. Sarap, 399 SCRA 503, 26 March 2003

See People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592, 21 March 2000 and People v. Rondero, 320
SCRA 383, 09 December 1999

P a g e | 15
Thus, in People v. Che Chun Ting, 64 the Supreme Court declared
that the search in the condominium unit of the accused was illegal
(the area was not within the immediate control of the accused at the
time of the arrest), and the shabu seized therein was inadmissible as
evidence. However, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the
accused on the basis of evidence consisting of, among others, shabu
which was found in bag of the accused at the time the police arrested
him in flagrante delicto in a buy-bust operation. 65

3.
If the items seized in an illegal search are
contraband or prohibited by law, the same cannot be returned
to the owner. 66
However, objects and properties the possession of which is
prohibited by law cannot be returned to their owners notwithstanding
the illegality of their seizure. 67

4.
If the items seized in an illegal search are not
contraband, the same should be returned to the owner. 68
Seized items that are products of an illegal search, and are not
contraband per se, nor objects in connection with the offense, should
be returned to the person from whom the same were taken. 69

64

21 March 2000

65

See also People v. Rondero 09 December 1999)

66

Castro v. Pabalan, 70 SCRA 477, 30 April 1976; People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592, 21
March 2000
67
People v. Che Chun Ting 21 March 2000
68
See Bache and Co., (Phil.) Inc. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823, 27 February 1971; Burgos v. Chief of
Staff, 133 SCRA 800, 26 December 1984; Nala v. Barroso, 408 SCRA 529, 07 August 2003
69
See Nala v. Barroso 07 August 2003