Cases Searches and Seizures

1 Placer v.
Villanueva
Placer v. Villanueva
conducted in Masbate. These were denied by the respondent court for
lack of merit.
In relation to the assassination of the representative of Masbate and his
6. Felix said that there exists probable cause that the offense of multiple
security escorts, the MTC of Masbate, after the presentation of affidavits and
murder was committed affirmed upon review by the Provincial
answers of the prosecutions witnesses, concluded that probable cause existed
Prosecutor... Considering that both the two competent officers to whom
for issuance of a warrant of arrest against Vicente Lim and company. When
such duty was entrusted by law have declared the existence of
the hearing of the case was transferred to Makati RTC and upon petition of
probable cause, each information is complete in form and substance,
spouses Lim for transmission of initial records of the preliminary investigation,
and there is no visible defect on its face
the respondent Judge concluded that probable cause existed due to the
declaration made by two competent officers the MTC of Masbate and the
Issue: Whether or not a judge may issue a warrant of arrest without bail by
Fiscal.
simply relying on the prosecutions certification and recommendation that a
probable cause exists
Facts:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Ruling:
The Congressman of the municipality of Masbate, Masbate (Moises
Espinos, Sr.) and his security escorts (Provincial Guards Antonio Cortes,
1.
Gaspar Amaro and Artemio Fuentes) were attacked and killed by a lone
assassin. One security escort (Dante Siblante) survived the
assassination plot but suffered a gunshot wound.
After an investigation of the incident, the designated investigator
(Harry Tantiado of the PC Criminal Investigation Service at Camp
Bagong Ibalon, Legazpi City) filed an amended complaint accusing
Vicente Lim, Sr., Mayor Susana Lim of Masbate, Jolly T. Fernandez,
Florencio T. Fernandez, Jr., Nonilon A. Bagalihog, Mayor Nestor C. Lim
and Mayor Antonio Kho of the crime of multiple murder and frustrated
2.
murder.
The Municipal Trial Court of Masbate, upon weighing the affidavits and
answers given by the witnesses for the prosecution during the
preliminary investigation in searching questions and answers,
concluded that a probable cause had been established for the issuance
of a warrant of arrest against the Lim, et.al. The recommended
amount for bail of each of the accused was Php 200,000.00. Except for
Cabarles, all of the accused posted bail.
The Fiscal (Antonio Alfane), a month after the entire records of the case
(261 pages) were transmitted, issued a resolution which affirmed the
finding of a prima facie case against Lim, et.al. but differed in the
designation of the crime. He ruled that all of the accused should not
only be charged with Multiple Murder with Frustrated Murder, but for a
3.
case of murder for each of the killing of the four victims and a physical
injuries case for inflicting gunshot wound on the buttocks of Siblante.
Said Fiscal filed with the RTC of Masbate four separate informations of
murder against the 12 accused with a recommendation of no bail.
The hearing of the case, due to the verified petition filed by Lim with
the SC, was transferred to the RTC of Makati, Branch 56 (under Judge
Nemesio Felix). The Lims filed with the said court motions and
manifestations, which include, among others, issue an order for
transmission of the initial records of the preliminary investigation
4.
Case Digests: Searches and Seizures Mark Justin Mooc
The issuance of a warrant is not a mere ministerial function; it calls for

the exercise of judicial discretion on the part of the issuing magistrate
(from Section 6, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court). Under this section,
the judge must satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause
before issuing a warrant or order of arrest. If on the face of the
information the judge finds no probable cause, he may disregard the
fiscals certification and require the submission of the affidavits of
witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of a
probable cause.
The 1988 Amendments to the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure
(effective on October 1, 1988) did not restore the authority of
conducting preliminary investigations to Judges of RTC; said
amendments did not in fact deal at all with the officers or courts
having authority to conduct preliminary investigations. This does not
mean, however, that RTC judges also lost the power to make a
preliminary examination for the purpose of determining whether
probable cause exists to justify the issuance of a warrant of arrest or
search warrant. Such power, is as much a duty as it is a power, has
been and remains vested in every judge by the provision of the Bill of
Rights securing the people against unreasonable searches and
seizures, thereby placing it beyond the competence of mere Court Rule
or Statute to revoke.
The distinction must be made clear: while an RTC judge may no longer
conduct preliminary investigations to ascertain whether there is
sufficient ground for the filing of a criminal complaint or information,
he retains the authority, when such a pleading is filed with his court, to
determine whether there is probable cause justifying the issuance of a
warrant of arrest. It might be added that this distinction accords,
rather than conflicts, with the rationale of salta, because both law and
rule, in restricting judges the authority to order arrest, recognize the
function to be judicial in nature.
Preliminary investigation should be distinguished as to whether it is an
investigation for the determination of a sufficient ground for the filing
2 Placer v. Villanueva
of the information or it is an investigation for the determination of a
probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. The first kind of
preliminary investigation is executive in nature, and part of the
prosecutions job. The second kind of preliminary investigation, which
is more properly called preliminary examination, is judicial in nature
and is lodged with the judge.
Soliven v. Makasiar
The President of the Philippines filed a complaint for libel against the
petitioners, who were the publisher and columnist of the Philippine Star, based
on the following statement in Beltran's column of Oct. 12, 1987 totle "The
Nervous Officials of the Aquino Administration": "If you recall, during the
August 29 coup attempt, the President hid under her bed while the firing was
going on - perhaps the first Commander-in-Chief to do so."
Facts:
1.
2.
In this case, upon the issue raised by petitioner Beltran, the

constitutional provision on the issuance of warrants of arrest was called
for an interpretation. Beltran wrote in the Philippine Star that during
the August 29 coup attempt, the President hid under her bed while the
firing was going on. Due to this, the President filed a libel complaint
against petitioners.
Beltran argues that the addition of the word personally after the
word determined and the deletion of the grant of authority by the
1973 Constitution to issue warrants to other responsible officers as
may be authorized by law. This interpretation convinced him that the
Constitution now requires the judge to personally examine the
complainant and his witnesses in his determination of probable cause
for the issuance of warrants of arrest.
Issue: Whether or not Beltrans constitution rights were violated when the
respondent RTC judge issued a warrant of arrest without personally examining
the complainant and the witnesses to determine probable cause
Ruling:
1.
2.
preliminary examinations and investigation of criminal complaints

instead of concentrating on hearing and deciding cases filed before
their courts.
In making the required personal determination, a Judge is not
precluded from relying on the evidence earlier gathered by responsible
officers. The extent of the reliance depends on the circumstances of
each case and is subject to the Judges sound discretion.
Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687

Roans house was searched by virtue of a search warrant and the said search
was performed by military authorities. During their search, the authorities
found a Colt Magnum revolver and 18 live bullets which they confiscated and
served as bases for the charge of illegal possession of firearms. However, the
application of said search warrant was based on the accounts of two
witnesses. The applicant did not have personal knowledge of said firearm.
Facts:
1.
2.
A search warrant was issued by respondent judge (Gonzales) on May

10, 1984. Application for the said search warrant was personally filed
by PC Capt. Mauro Quillosa. Together with Quillosa were two witnesses
(Esmael Morada and Jesus Tohilida), who presented to respondent
judge their respective affidavits. The application was not yet
subscribed and sworn to, as such respondent Judge proceeded to
examine Quillosa on the contents of the application to ascertain if he
knew and understood the same. Afterwards, Quillosa subscribed and
swore the said application before respondent.
Petitioners (Josefino Roan) house was searched two days after the
issuance of the search warrant. The said search was performed by
military authorities. Despite none of the articles listed in the warrant
was discovered, the officers who conducted the search found one Colt
Magnum revolver and 18 live bullets which they confiscated. The said
items served as bases for the charge of illegal possession of firearms
against the petitioner.
Issue: Whether or not a search warrant be annulled on the ground that it

violates the privacy of one persons house
The judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and

his witnesses. What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and Ruling/Decision:
personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the
existence of probable cause. Instead, he shall (a) personally evaluate
1. To be valid, a search warrant must be supported by probable cause to
the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal
be determined by the judge or some authorized officer after examining
regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof,
the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. There must be a
issue a warrant of arrest; or (b) if on the basis thereof he finds no
specific description of the place to be searched and the things to be
probable cause, he may disregard the fiscals report and require the
seized, to prevent arbitrary and indiscriminate use of the warrant.
submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving
Probable cause, as described by Judge Escolin in Burgos v. Chief of
at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause. This procedure
Staff, refers to such facts and circumstances which would lead a
should be followed, otherwise judges would be unduly laden with the
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has
2.
3.
4.
been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the
offense are in the place sought to be searched. The probable cause
must refer to only one specific offense.
The applicant (Capt. Quillosa) was asking for the issuance of the search
5.
warrant on the basis of mere hearsay and not of information personally
known to him as required by settled jurisprudence.
6.
It is axiomatic that the magistrate must be probing and exhaustive, not
merely routinary or pro-forma, if the claimed probable cause is to be
established. The examining magistrate must not simply rehash the
contents of the affidavit but must make his own inquiry on the intent
and justification of the application.
Prohibited articles may be seized but only as long as the search is
valid. In this case, it was not because: (a) there was no valid search
Ruling:
warrant; and (b) absent such a warrant, the right thereto was not
validly waived by the petitioner. In short, the military officers who
1.
entered the petitioners premises had no right to be there and
therefore had no right to seize the pistol and bullets.
People v. Bolasa y Nakoboan

Three police officers (Salonga, Carizon and Arenas) peeped through a small
window and saw a man and a woman repacking suspected marijuana, as they
were informed by an anonymous caller. The police officers entered the house
and introduced themselves as police officers and thereupon confiscated the
tea bags and some paraphernalia. After the examination of the tea bags, it
was confirmed that same contained marijuana.
2.
Facts:
1.
2.
3.
4.
PO3 Dante Salonga and PO3 Albert Carizon were informed by an

anonymous caller that a man and woman were repacking prohibited
drugs at a certain house in Sta. Brigida St., Karuhatan, Valenzuela.
Together with SPO1 Fernando Arenas, they proceeded immediately to
the house of the suspects. As they walked toward their quarrys (prey)
lair, the three were accompanied by their unnamed informer.
When they reached the house, they peeped through a small window
and saw one man and a woman repacking suspected marijuana. They
entered the house and introduced themselves as police officers to the
occupants and thereupon confiscated the tea bags and some
paraphernalia. Examination of the tea bags by NBI Forensic Chemist
confirmed the suspicion that the tea bags contained marijuana. As
such, Zenaida Bolasa and Roberto delos Reyes were charged with
violation of Sec. 8, Art. II of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972).
Both denied on the witness stand ownership over the confiscated tea
bags and drug implements.
delos Reyes claimed that he and his wife were merely tenants in
Bolasas house and at the time he was arrested he had just arrived
from work. He added that when he learned that Bolasa was repacking
3.
marijuana inside their room, he immediately ordered her to leave. As

for Bolasa, she claimed that she was about to leave the house when
she met a certain Rico and conversed with him for some time.
The trial court, upon finding the version of the prosecution to be
plausible, convicted both accused Bolasa and delos Reyes.
On appeal, Bolasa asserted that the search in her residence was illegal
as her arrest preceding it was illegal. She argued that the marijuana
seized from her could not be properly used as evidence against her.
Together with delos Reyes, Bolasa said that PO3 Carizon was not
among the arresting officers, as such Carizon had no personal
knowledge regarding the conduct of the arrest and the search thus
making his testimony hearsay.
An arrest is lawful even in the absence of a warrant: (a) when the

person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
about to commit an offense in his presence; (b) when an offense has in
fact been committed and he has reasonable ground to believe that the
person to be arrested has committed it; and, (c) when the person to be
arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or
place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while
his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another. The manner by which accused were
apprehended does not fall under any of the above-enumerated
categories. From the above, the arrest is illegal.
It cannot be said that the objects were seized in plain view. First, there
was no valid intrusion. As already discussed, accused were illegally
arrested. Second, the evidence later on found to contain marijuana
was not inadvertently discovered. The police officers intentionally
peeped first through the window before they saw and ascertained the
activities of accused-appellants inside the room. In like manner, the
search cannot be recognized as a search of a moving vehicle, a
consented warrantless search, a customs search or a stop and frisk; it
cannot even fall under exigent and emergency circumstances, for
evidence at hand is deprived of any such showing.
It indicates that the apprehending officers should have conducted first
a surveillance considering that the entities and address of the
suspected culprits were already ascertained. After conducting the
surveillance and determining the existence of probable cause for
arresting accused, they (the police) should have secured a search
warrant prior to effecting a valid arrest and seizure. The arrest being
illegal ab initio, the accompanying search was likewise illegal. Every
evidence obtained during the illegal search cannot be used against
accused; hence, they were acquitted.
People v. Alunday
Alunday was found to have planted, cultivated and cultured marijuana fruiting
tops and have in his possession an M16 Rifle without any written authority or
permit. He was rendered a decision of conviction for violation of Dangerous
Drugs Act, but was acquitted for reasonable doubt for violating PD 1866.
Alunday contended however that he was arrested without warrant and his
warrantless arrest does not fall under the circumstances contemplated by
Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules of Court.
Facts:
1.
2.
3.
Section 5(a) refers to arrest in flagrante delicto. In flagrante delicto

means caught in the act of committing a crime. This rule, which
warrants the arrest of a person without warrant, requires that the
person arrested has just committed a crime, or is committing it, or is
about to commit an offense, in the presence or within view of the
arresting officer.
In the case at bar, the information was received by the Intelligence
Section of the Provincial Office of the Mountain Province in May 2000
while the accused was arrested during the police raid at the plantation
at Mount Churyon, Sadanga on August. This is so because the arrest
was effected only after a series of validations conducted by the team
to verify or confirm the report that indeed a marijuana plantation
existed at the area, which was confirmed on August 2. During the day
of the arrest (August 3), the arresting team of SPO1 Saipen proceeded
to the marijuana plantation and Saipen saw Alunday personally cutting
and gathering marijuana plants. Therefore, his arrest was legal
because he was caught in flagrante delicto.
It is much too late in the day to complain about the warrantless arrest
after a valid information has been filed, the accused arraigned, trial
commenced and completed, and a judgment of conviction rendered
against him. He raised the additional issue of irregularity of his arrest
only during his appeal to the SC. He is, therefore, deemed to have
waived such alleged defect by submitting himself to the jurisdiction of
the court by his counsel-assisted plea during his arraignment; by his
actively participating in the trial and by not raising the objection before
his arraignment.
Accused (Ricardo Alunday alias Kayad), without being authorized by

law, and with intent to plant and cultivate, unlawfully and
feloniously planted, cultivated and cultured marijuana fruiting tops
weighing more than 750 grams. Said marijuana fruiting tops had an
estimated value of Php 10 million. For this, he was charged with
violation of Section 9 of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972).
4.
2. Alunday was likewise additionally charged with violation of PD 1866 for
he was found to have possessed an M16 Rifle without any written
authority or permit previously acquired from authorities to carry or
transport the said firearm.
3. The RTC found Alunday guilty of violating RA 6425 while he was
acquitted for violating PD 1866 for reasonable doubt. This was
affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
4. Accused, in his appeal, assailed his conviction for being improper and
illegal, asserting that the court a quo never acquired jurisdiction over
his person because he was arrested without a warrant and that his
People v. Cruz
warrantless arrest was not done under any of the circumstances
enumerated in Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules of Court. He
Members of the CRIG nabbed two persons who were to sell a stolen car. After
insisted that the arresting officers had 3 months within which to secure the carnap suspects were brought to the police headquarters, they led the
a warrant from the time they received the information about an
CRIG team to the place where other members of the carnap gang were
existing marijuana plantation in Mount Churyon, Sadanga in May 2000 waiting. The accused, Cruz, was found to have possessed a calibre .38 paltik
until they effected arrest on August 2000. Also, he contended that the revolver, one live ammunition and a hand grenade in his clutch bag. He was
arresting officers failure to secure a warrant can never be justified by charged with the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition. He
the urgency of the situation.
contended however that the PC officers had no warrant of arrest and that the
said firearm and explosive were found when they (carnap gang) were being
Ruling:
arrested for carnapping and not for illegal possession of firearm and
ammunition.
1. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides that a peace officer
or a private person may, without warrant, arrest a person: (a) when the Facts:
person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
about to commit an offense in his presence; (b) when an offense has in
1. Eight members of CRIG, led by Lt. Noel Manabat, stationed at Camp
fact been committed and he has reasonable ground to believe that the
Bagong Diwa acted on an intelligence information that on noon of May
person to be arrested has committed it; and, (c) when the person to be
9, 1986 a stolen car was to be sold in Magallanes, Makati. The team
arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or
nabbed Romeo Fernandez and Joey Flores and brought them to
place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while
headquarters where they were questioned.
his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
2.
The two carnap suspects led the CRIG team to 61 Mabituan St.,
Meanwhile, Del Elshout, the after mission report dated February 27,
Masambong, QC where they alleged the other members of the carnap
1988, revealed that there were two children ages 14 and 16 which
gang were waiting for their shares of the proceeds from the sale of a
subject readily accepted having been in his care and live-in for quite
vehicle.
sometime.
3. A calibre .38 paltik revolver, one live ammunition and a hand grenade,
4. Deportation proceedings were instituted against the petitioners for
contained in a clutch bag, were found near accused (Reynaldo Cruz
being undesirable aliens under Section 69 of the Revised
alias Rene Hapon). For this reason, he was charged with the crime of
Administrative Code, being pedophiles who are inimical to public
Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition. He denied ownership or
morals, public health and public safety.
possession of the firearm and hand grenade, as well as the bag which
5. On April 4, 1988, petitioners availed of a petition for a writ of habeas
contained the said items. He claimed that the bag and its contents
corpus. They question the validity of their detention on the ground
belonged to Joey Flores and was planted by PC operatives.
that, among others, respondent (Miriam Santiago) violated Section 2,
4. Cruz contended that the firearm and explosive in question cannot be
Article III prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures since the CID
used as evidence against him since the PC officers had no warrant of
agents were not clothed with warrants of arrest, search and seizure as
arrest when they entered the apartment, in violation of his
required by said provision.
constitutional rights. Moreover, he contended that the unlicensed
firearm and explosive were found when they arrested the accused and Ruling:
his companions for carnapping and not for illegal possession of
1. The right against unreasonable searches and seizures as guaranteed
firearm ammunition.
by Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution is available to all
persons, including aliens, whether accused of crime or not. One of the
Ruling:
constitutional requirements of a valid search warrant or warrant of
1. The police officers failed to comply with the strictures laid down by the
arrest is that it must be based upon probable cause.
Court for police officers to follow in a custodial investigation especially
2. An arrest may be effected by a peace officer or even a private person,
in the waiver of constitutional rights made without the assistance or
even without warrant, when the offense has, in fact, been committed
even in the presence of counsel.
and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to
be arrested has committed it. In this case, the arrest of petitioners was
Harvey v. Santiago
based on probable cause determined after close surveillance for three
months during which period their activities were monitored. The
Harvey, together with Sherman and Del Elshout, were alien pedophiles and
existence of probable cause justified the arrest and the seizure of the
were caught to have possessed articles/instruments indicating that they were
photo negatives, photographs and posters without warrant.
engaged in child prostitution. Prior to the apprehension, members of the
3. That petitioners were not caught in the act does not make their arrest
Commission on Immigration and Deportation performed close surveillance in
illegal. They were found with boys in their respective rooms, the one
Pagsanjan, Laguna. Petitioners questioned the validity of their detention due
with Sherman being naked. Under those circumstances, the CID
to the violation of the right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
agents had reasonable grounds to believe that petitioners had
committed pedophilia.
Facts:
1.
Petitioners (Andrew Harvey, 52, John Sherman, 72, Adriaan Van Del
Elshout, 58) were among the 22 alien pedophiles who were
apprehended after three of close surveillance by the Commission on
Immigration and Deportation agents in Pagsanjan, Laguna. They were
the only ones who have chosen to face deportation.
2. Seized during petitioners apprehension were rolls of photo negatives
and photos of suspected child prostitutes shown in salacious (lustful)
poses as well as boys and girls engaged in the sex act. There were
also posters and other literature advertising the child prostitutes.
3. Based from the operation report on Harvey and Sherman dated
February 29, 1988, Harvey was found together with two young boys
while Sherman was found with two naked boys inside his room.
Bache Co. [Phil], Inc. v. Ruiz

Misael Vera, Commissioner of Internal Revenue, wrote a letter seeking
issuance for a search warrant against Bache Co. [Phil.] for violation of Section
46(a) of the NIRC and authorizing his Revenue Examiner, de Leon, to make and
file the application of search warrant. The respondent judge, since he was
hearing a certain case that moment when de Leon arrived the following day,
requested his Deputy Clerk of Court to take the depositions of de Leon and his
witness and, after his hearing of the case and the reading of the
stenographers notes of the depositions taken, asked the de Leons witness to
take the oath. Three days later, the agents of BIR served the warrant and
seized 6 boxes of documents.
Facts:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
On February 24, 1970, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Misael

Vera) wrote a letter addressed to respondent (Judge Vivencio Ruiz),
requesting the issuance of a search warrant against petitioners for
violation of Section 46(a) of the National Internal Revenue Code and
authorizing his Revenue Examiner (Rodolfo de Leon) to make and file
the application for search warrant which was attached to the letter.
The following day, de Leon and his witness (Arturo Logronio) went to
the CFI of Rizal, bringing with them: (a) respondent Veras letterrequest, (b) application for search warrant already filled up but still
unsigned by de Leon, (c) an affidavit of respondent Logronio
subscribed before de Leon, (d) a deposition in printed form of Logronio
already accomplished and signed by him but not yet subscribed, and
(e) a search warrant already accomplished but still unsigned by
respondent Judge.
Since the Judge was hearing a certain case, he (Ruiz) instructed his
Deputy Clerk of Court to take the depositions of de Leon and Logronio.
After the sessions adjournment, he (Ruiz) asked Logronio to take the
oath. Prior to Logronios swearing in, the stenographer, upon Ruiz
request, read to him her stenographic notes.
He signed de Leons application for search warran and Longonios
deposition. After which, the search warrant was signed and
accordingly issued.
Three days later, the BIR agents served the search warrant at
petitioners offices. Petitioners lawyers protested the search warrant
on the ground that no formal complaint or transcript of testimony was
attached to the warrant. Despite this, the agents proceeded with their
search which yielded six boxes of documents.
2.
3.
Prudente v Dayrit
On a Saturday, the respondent Judge Dayrit issued a search warrant as applied
for by Dimagmaliw. Dimagmaliw believed that petitioner, Prudente, had in his
possession firearms and ammunitions found in the ground and second floors of
Polytechnic University of the Philippines. The search warrant was enforced the
following day. Found in the drawer of a cabinet inside the washroom of Dr.
Prudentes office was a bulging brown envelope with 3 live fragmentation hand
grenades, each wrapped with old newspapers.
Facts:
1.
Ruling:
Respondent Judge failed to personally examine the complainant and
his witness. The examination of the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce, required by the said constitutional provision and by
Sections 3 and 4, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Court, should be
conducted by the judge himself and not by others. In the case at bar,
no personal examination was conducted by respondent Judge of the
complainant and his witness. While it is true that the complainants
application for search warrant and the witness printed-form
description were subscribed and sworn to before Ruiz, the latter (Ruiz)
did not ask any question whose answers could possibly be the basis for
determining whether there exists probable cause. It was precisely on
account of the intention of the delegates to the Constitutional
Convention to make it a duty of the issuing judge to personally
examine the complainant and his witnesses. More so, the reading of
the stenographic notes to respondent judge did not constitute
sufficient compliance with the constitutional mandate the rule; for by
that manner, respondent judge did not have the opportunity to observe
the demeanor of the complainant and his witness, and to propound
initial and follow-up questions which the judicial mind, on account of its
training, was in the best position to conceive.
The search warrant cannot be issued for more than one specific
offense. This is in compliance to Section 3, Rule 126 of the Rules of
Court which provides that no search warrant shall issue for more than
one specific offense.
The search warrant does not particularly describe the things to be
seized. A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the
things 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 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.
1.
2.
3.
Petitioner (Nemesio Prudente) was implicated for having violated PD

1866 (Illegal Possession of Firearms). As alleged by P/Major Alladin
Dimagmaliw when he applied for a search warrant in the sala of Judge
Abelardo Dayrit of the RTC Manila, Prudente may be found at the
Polytechnic University of the Philippines where he was keeping and
concealing firearms, explosive, handgrenades and ammunition,
specifically at the (a) Offices of the Department for Military Science
and Tactics at the ground floor and other rooms at the ground floor and
(b) Office of the President , Dr. Nemesio Prudente at PUP, 2nd floor and
other rooms at the 2nd floor.
Dimagmaliw believes that a search warrant should be issued to enable
him or any agent of the law to take possession and bring to the court
the following properties: (a) M16 armalites with ammunitions, (b) .38
and .45 caliber handguns and pistols, (c) explosives and
handgrenades, and (d) assorted weapons with ammunition.
On the same day (October 31, 1987), the respondent Judge (Dayrit)
issued search warrant. The following day (Sunday), with some 200
West Police Department operatives, the search warrant was enforced.
4.
Meanwhile, a member of the searching team (Ricardo Abando) alleged

be particularly describe the place to be searched, even if there were
in his affidavit that he found in the drawer of a cabinet inside the
several rooms at the ground floor and second floor of PUP.
washroom of Dr. Prudentes office a bulging brown envelope with 3 live
4. Applicants failure to state under oath the urgent need for the issuance
fragmentation hand grenades separately wrapped with old
of the search warrant, his application having been filed on a Saturday,
newspapers.
rendered the questioned warrant invalid for being violative of SC
5. Petitioner however moved to quash the search warrant on grounds that
Circular 19 which provides that: applications filed after office hours,
(a) the complainants lone witness (Lt. Florenio Angeles) had no
during Saturdays, Sundays and holidays shall likewise be taken
personal knowledge of the facts which formed the basis for the
cognizance of and acted upon by any judge of the court having
issuance of the search warrant, (b) examination of the said witness was
jurisdiction of the place to be searched, but in such cases, the
not in the form of searching questions and answers, (c) the search
applicant shall certify and state the facts under oath to the satisfaction
warrant was a general warrant for the reason that it did not particularly
of the judge that the issuance is urgent.
describe the place to be searched and that it failed to charge one
Guanzon v. De Villa
specific offense, and (d) the search warrant was issued in violation of
Circular No. 19 of the SC in that the complainant failed to allege under The military and police officers conducted Areal Target Zonings or
oath that the issuance of the search warrant on a Saturday was urgent. saturation drives in Metro Manila, specifically on places where the
subversives, as pinpointed by said authorities, were hiding. During these
Ruling:
saturation drives, police and military units cordon an area of more than one
residence and sometimes the whole barangay or areas of barangays, without
1. For a valid search warrant to issue, there must be probable cause
any search warrant or warrant of arrest. Petitioners claimed that said
which is to be determined personally by the judge after examination
saturation drives followed a common pattern of human rights abuses, as such,
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may sought for its stoppage.
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized. The probable cause must be in
Facts:
connection with one specific offense and the judge must, before
issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of searching
1. The petitioners, who are of legal age, bona fide residents of Metro
questions and answers, in writing and under oath, the complainant and
Manila, and taxpayers and leaders in their respective communities,
any witness he may produce, on facts personally known to them and
sought to prohibit the military and police officers from conducting
attach to the record their sworn statements together with any
Areal Target Zonings or saturation drives in Metro Manila.
affidavits submitted.
2. Petitioners claim that on various dates from March 5, 1987 till
2. As held in Alvarez v. CFI, the true test of sufficiency of a deposition or
November 3 of the same year, various saturation drives were
affidavit to warrant issuance of a search warrant is whether it has been
conducted by the respondents. Added by the petitioners, that these
drawn in a manner that perjury could be charged thereon and the
saturation drives are in critical areas pinpointed by the military and
affiant be held liable for damage caused. The oath required must refer
police as places where the subversives are hiding. The arrests ranged
to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the applicant
from 7 persons (July 20, Bankusay, Tondo) to 1,500 (November 3,
for search warrant, and/or his witnesses, not of the facts merely
Lower Maricaban, Pasay City) and that same followed a common
reported by a person whom one considers reliable. Tested by the
pattern of human rights abuses like police and military units, without
above standard, the allegations of the witness do not come up to the
any search warrant or warrant of arrest, cordon an area of more than
level of facts of his personal knowledge so much so that he cannot be
one residence and sometimes whole barangay or areas of barangay in
held liable for perjury for such allegations in causing the issuance of
Metro Manila, from the dead of the night or early morning hours and
the questioned search warrant.
residents are herded as cows with men ordered to strip down to their
3. The rule is, that a description of a place to be searched is sufficient if
briefs and examined for tattoo marks and other imagined marks.
the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and
identify the place intended. In the case at bar, the application for
Ruling:
search warrant and the search warrant itself described the place to be
searched as the premises of PUP, and had specified the offices of the
1. There appears to have been no impediment to securing search
said university. The designation of the place to be searched sufficiently
warrants or warrants of arrest before any houses were searched or
complied with the constitutional injunction that a search warrant must
individuals roused from sleep were arrested. There is no strong
showing that the objectives sought to be attained by the areal zoning
could not be achieved as the rights of the squatter and low income
families are fully protected. Where a violation of human rights
specifically guaranteed by the Constitution is involved, it is the duty of
the court to stop the transgression and state where even the awesome
5.
power of the state may not encroach upon the rights of the individual.
2. Where there is large scale mutiny or actual rebellion, the police or
military may go in force to the combat areas, enter affected residences
or buildings, round up suspected rebels and otherwise quell the mutiny Ruling:
or rebellion without having to secure search warrants and without
1.
violating the Bill of Rights.
3. A show of force is sometimes necessary as long as the rights of the
people are protected and not violated. A blanket prohibition such as
that sought by the petitioners would limit all police power to one on
one confrontation where search warrants and warrants of arrest
against specific individuals are easily procured.
2.
Pita v. Court of Appeals
In an Anti-Smut Campaign, members of the Metropolitan Police Force of Manila
seized and confiscated along the sidewalks of Manila publications, magazines
and other reading materials believed to be obscene, pornographic and
indecent. One of said publications is Pinoy Playboy whose co-editor and
publisher is Pita. Said materials were burned in public along U-Belt.
Facts:
materials confiscated belonged to the magazine stand owners and

peddlers, who voluntarily surrendered their reading materials and that
petitioners establishment was not raided.
The trial court denied the motion for a writ of preliminary injunction
and dismissed the case for lack of merit. On appeal to the CA, RTCs
decision was affirmed.
It is basic that searches and seizures may be done only through a

judicial warrant, otherwise, they become unreasonable and subject to
challenge. Pertinent provisions state that the search must have been
incident to a lawful search, and the arrest must be on account of a
crime committed. In the case at bar, no party has been charged, nor
are such charges being readied against any party.
The Court rejected the argument that there is no constitutional nor
legal provision which would free the accused of all criminal
responsibility because there had been no warrant and that violation
of penal law must be punished. For starters, there is no accused here
to speak of, who out to be punished. Second, to say that the
respondent Mayor could have validly ordered the raid (as a result of an
anti-smut campaign), without a lawful search warrant because, in his
opinion, violation of penal laws has been committed, is to make the
respondent Mayor judge, jury and executioner rolled into one.
Valmonte v. De Villa
Pursuing an Anti-Smut Campaign initiated by the Mayor of Manila
(Ramon Bagatsing) on December 1 and 3, 1983, members of the
The NCR-District Command established checkpoints in various points of
Metropolitan Police Force of Manila seized and confiscated from
Valenzuela, Metro Manila. According to petitioner, who had been subjected to
dealers, distributors, newsstand owners and peddlers along Manila
checkpoint once, the checkpoints caused worries among the residents of
sidewalks magazines, publications and other reading materials
Valenzuela, especially the possibility of getting harassed.
believed to be obscene, pornographic and indecent. The said materials
Facts:
included Pinoy Playboy whose co-editor and publisher is the
petitioner (Leo Pita). The said materials were burned in public along
1. Activated through LOI 02/87 of the Philippine General Headquarters,
the University Belt along CM Recto Avenue, in the presence of Mayor
AFP, the NCR District Command sought to conduct security operations
Bagatsing and several officers and members of various student
within its area of responsibility and peripheral areas for the purpose of
organizations.
establishing an effective territorial defense, maintaining peace and
2. Petitioner, on December 7, 1983, prayed for issuance of the writ of
order, and providing an atmosphere conducive to the social, economic
preliminary injunction against Mayor Bagatsing and the superintendent
and political development of the NCR. As part of its duty to maintain
of the Western Police District of Manila (Narciso Cabrera), restraining
peace and order, the NCRDC installed checkpoints in various parts of
them and their agents from confiscating Pinoy Playboy magazines or
Valenzuela, Metro Manila.
from preventing the sale of the said magazine for it, according to Pita,
2. Petitioner (Ricardo Valmonte), together with the Union of Lawyers and
is a decent, artistic, and educational magazine.
Advocates for Peoples Rights, contended that said checkpoints caused
3. Five days laters, petitioner filed an urgent motion for issuance of a TRO
worries among the residents of Valenzuela, including the possibility of
against indiscriminate seizure, confiscation and burning of the said
getting harassed. Aside from the possibility of getting harassed,
magazine pending hearing on the petition for preliminary injunction.
residents worry of their safety due to the arbitrary, capricious and
4. In opposing petitioners application for a writ of preliminary injunction,
whimsical disposition of the military manning the checkpoints,
Mayor Bagatsing pointed that during the anti-smut campaign, the
considering that their cars and vehicles are being subjected to regular
1.
3.
4.
searches and check-ups, especially at night or at dawn, without the

Facts:
benefit of a search warrant and/or court order.
1.
On July 9, 1988, a supply officer of the Municipality of Valenzuela,
Bulacan (Benjamin Parpon) was gunned down (not killed) allegedly by
members of the NCRDC manning the checkpoint for ignoring and/or
refusing to submit himself to the checkpoint and for continuing to
speed off in spite of warning shots fired in the air.
Petitioners (Valmonte and ULAP) contended that the said checkpoints
give the respondents (De Villa) a blanket authority to make searches
2.
and/or seizures without search warrant or court order in violation of the
Constitution. Valmonte has claimed that he had gone thru said
checkpoints where he was stopped and his car subjected to
search/check-up without a court order or search warrant.
3.
Ruling:
1.
2.
3.
4.
No proof has been presented before the Court to show that, in the
course of their routine checks, the military indeed committed specific Ruling:
violations of petitioners right against unlawful searches and seizures,
1.
or other rights. Petitioners general allegation that he had been
stopped and searched without a search warrant by the military
manning the checkpoints, without stating the details of the incidents
2.
which amount to a violation of his right against unlawful search and
seizure, is not sufficient to enable the Court to determine whether
there was a violation of Valmontes right against unlawful search and
seizure.
The constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures is
a personal right, and could be invoked only by those whose rights have
been infringed or threatened to be infringed. What constitutes a
reasonable or unreasonable search and seizure in any particular case is
purely a judicial question, determinable from a consideration of the
circumstances involved.
Not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Those which are
reasonable are not forbidden. A reasonable search is not to be
determined by any fixed formula but is to be resolved according to the
3.
facts of each case. When the officer merely draws aside the curtain of
a vacant vehicle which is parked on the public fair grounds or simply
looks into a vehicle or flashes a light therein, these do not constitute
unreasonable search.
Between the inherent right of the State to protect its existence and
promote public welfare and an individuals right against a warrantless
search, which is reasonably conducted, the former shall prevail.
People v. Burgos
Burgos was alleged to be a member of the NPA. In his possession, one
homemade revolver was found. He claimed that there was no valid warrant to
effect search.
4.
Ruben Burgos was convicted for the crime of Illegal Possession of

Firearms in Furtherance of Subversion. In his possession was found
one homemade revolver, calibre .38, make Smith and Wesson. Said
firearm was issued to and used by Burgos at Tiguman Digos, Davao de
Sur by Alias Commander Pol of the NPA in the performance of his
subversive tasks such as the recruitment of new members to the NPA
and collection of contributions from the members.
Burgos, in his own account, claimed to have been torture and physical
agony for he repeatedly refused to accept said firearm as his. He was
undressed, with only blindfold, hot water poured in his body and over
his private parts.
In his appeal to the SC, he claimed that there was no valid warrant to
effect search in his house; thus, making him liable for the crime of
illegal possession.
Based on the statement given by Cesar Masamlok (a former NPA),

when the police authorities went to Burgos house, they did not have
any warrant of arrest or search warrant with them.
Under Section 6(a) of Rule 113 which states that [w]hen the person to
be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is about to
commit an offense in his presence, no search warrant or warrant of
arrest is needed to make the arrest valid. Moreover, said offense must
be committed in his presence or within his view. In the case at bar,
there is no such personal knowledge in this case for whatever
knowledge was possessed by the arresting officers came entirely from
the information furnished by Cesar Masamlok. The location of the
firearm was given by the Burgos wife. And, at the time of Burgos
arrest, he was not in actual possession of any firearm or subversive
document neither was he committing any act which could be described
as subversive. In fact, he was plowing his field at the time of the
arrest.
The right of a person to be secure against any unreasonable seizure of
his body and any deprivation of his liberty is a most basic and
fundamental one. The statute or rule which allows exceptions to the
requirements of warrants of arrest is strictly construed. Any exception
must clearly fall within the situations when securing a warrant would
be absurd or is manifestly unnecessary as provided by the Rule. The
court cannot liberally construe the rule on arrests without warrant or
extend its application beyond the cases specifically provided by law. To
do so would infringe upon personal liberty and set back a basic right so
often violated and so deserving of full protection.
The questioned firearm and alleged subversive documents were
obtained in violation of Burgos constitutional rights against
unreasonable searches and seizures; this, making said articles
inadmissible as evidence.
investigation room, the officers opened the teddy bears and found to
contain hashish.
An information was filed against Malmstedt for violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. Malmstedt raised the issue of illegal
search of his personal effects.
6.
People v. Malmstedt
On Malmstedts way from Sagada to Angeles City, the police boarded the bus
where he was riding. A bulge was spotted on Malmstedts waist and, when
Ruling:
opened, 4 suspicious-looking objects wrapped in brown packing tape were
found. When said objects were opened, the wrapped objects turned out to be
1. There are exceptions where a search may be made pursuant to a
hashish, a derivative of marijuana. Moreover, in each of his bags, teddy bears
lawful arrest which need not to obtain a search warrant. These
contained hashish.
circumstances include: (a) when the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing or is attempting to commit an
Facts:
offense, in the presence of a peace officer or a private person; (b)
when the offense was committed and the peace officer/private person
1. On May 11, 1989, the Commanding Officer (Capt. Alen Vasco) of the
has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
First Regional Command (NARCOM) ordered his men to set up a
arrested has committed it; and (c) when the person to be arrested is a
temporary checkpoint at Kilometer 14, Acop, Tublay, Mountain
prisoner who has escaped from a penal institution/place where he is
Province. Said checkpoint was for the purpose of checking all vehicles
serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is
coming from the Cordillera Region and was prompted by persistent
pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement
reports that vehicles coming from Sagada were transporting marijuana
to another. In the case at bar, accused was searched and arrested
and other prohibited drugs. Moreover, the Commanding Officer
while transporting prohibited drugs. A crime was actually being
received an information that a Caucasian (Mikael Malmstedt) coming
committed by the accused and he was caught in flagrante delicto.
from Sagada had in his possession prohibited drugs.
Thus, the search made upon his personal effects falls squarely under
2. In the afternoon of same day, the bus where Malmstedt was riding was
the first circumstance provided by the law which allow a warrantless
stopped. Malmstedt was on his way to Angeles City and would then
search incident to a lawful arrest.
proceed to Manila to catch his flight out of the country two days later.
2. The acts of the NARCOM officers in requiring the accused to open his
In the bus, 2 NARCOM officers (Sgt. Fider and CIC Galutan) boarded the
pouch bag and in opening one of the wrapped objects inside said bag
bus and announced that they were members of the NARCOM and that
as well as the two travel bags containing 2 teddy bears with hashish
they would conduct an inspection. Said officers started their
stuffed inside them, were prompted by Malmstedts own attempt to
inspection from the front going towards the rear of the bus where the
hide his identity by refusing to present his passport, and by the
accused was seated.
information received by the NARCOM that a Caucasian coming from
3. Galutan noticed a bulge on Malmstedts waist. He suspected that said
Sagada had prohibited drugs in his possession. To deprive the
bulge was a gun, thus he asked for the latters passport and other
NARCOM agents of the ability and facility to act accordingly, including,
identification papers to which he (Malmstedt) failed to comply. For
to search even without warrant, in the light of such circumstance,
failure to comply with presenting passport and identification papers,
would be to sanction impotence and ineffectiveness in law
Galutan required Malmstedt to bring out whatever it was that was
enforcement, to the detriment of society.
bulging on his waist. It turned out that the bulging object was a pouch
bag and when Malmstedt opened the said bag as ordered, the officer
People v. Lo Ho Wing (alias Peter Lo), Lim Cheng Huat (alias Antonio
noticed 4 suspicious-looking objects wrapped in brown packing tape.
When opened, the wrapped objects turned out to contain hashish, a
Lim) and Reynaldo Tia
derivative of marijuana.
Reynaldo Tia, a deep penetration agent of the SOG, reported of his
4. Malmstedt was invited for questioning outside. But before leaving the undercover activities on the suspected criminal syndicate led by Lo and Lim.
bus, he stopped to get 2 travelling bags. The officers, upon
Moreover, Tia informed his superior regarding their return to the country.
Malmstedts alighting from the bus, got the bags and opened them. A Upon arrival in the Philippines, Lo and Tia rode in one taxi cab while Lim rode
teddy bear, having bulges, was found in each bag. After the bags were in another. They were pursued by the members of the NARCOM and were
opened, it was then that Malmstedt presented his passport.
stopped. With permission of Lo and Tia, a tin can of tea was taken out of the
5. Malmstedt was brought to the headquarters of NARCOM at Camp
red travel bag and, upon examination by the PC-INP Crime Laboratory,
Dangwas, La Trinidad, Benguet for further investigation. At the
contained metamphetamine. Petitioner contend that a warrant was needed.
Facts:
1.
since they had been informed of the date and time of arrival of the
accused at the NAIA well ahead of time. Moreover, as claimed by Lo,
the fact that the search and seizure in question were made on a
moving vehicle does not automatically make the warrantless search
fall within the coverage of exceptions of the necessity of a valid
warrant to effect search.
The Special Operations Group received a tip from one of its informers
about an organized group engaged in the importation of illegal drugs,
smuggling of contraband goods and gunrunning. As part of the
operations, the recruitment of confidential men and deep penetration
agents was carried out to infiltrate the crime syndicate. One of those
recruited was Reynaldo Tia.
Ruling:
2. Tia was introduced to Lim Cheng Huat (Antonio Lim) where the latter
1. The search and seizure supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute
expressed a desire to hire a male travel companion for his business
rule. As set forth in Manipon, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, there are at least 3
trips abroad. Tia offered his services and was hire. Together with Lim,
well-recognized exceptions, namely: (a) a search incidental to an
Tia, in one of the meetings in China, was introduced to Lo Ho Wing
arrest, (b) a search of a moving vehicle, and (c) seizure of evidence in
(Peter Lo) whom tia found out to be the person he was to accompany
plain view. In the case at bar, there is a clear showing that the search
to China in lieu of Lim.
in question, having been made in a moving vehicle, does not need a
3. As deep penetration agent, Tia regularly submitted reports of his
valid warrant to effect search.
undercover activities on the suspected criminal syndicate to Capt.
2. A warrantless search of a moving vehicle is justified on the ground that
Luisito Palmera, head of Oplan Sharon 887 the group created in order
it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be
to bus the suspected syndicate. Tia informed Palmera of their return to
quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant
the Philippines after they (Lo and Tia) left for Hong Kong.
must be sought.
4. Upon arrival in the Philippines, they were met by Lim. After Lim and Lo
finished their conversation, Lo hailed a taxicab. Lo and Tia boarded the
Yee Sue Kuy v. Almeda
taxicab while Lim followed in another taxi cab. Meanwhile, the
operatives of the NARCOM (Narcotics Command), having been notified A search warrant was issued, upon application by Almeda and presentation of
by Palmera, stationed themselves in strategic places around the arrival Estrada as witness, to effect search and seizure of store and premises of Sam
area. Upon seeing Lo and Tia leave the airport, the operatives followed & Sing Co., which is owned by petitioner. Said search and seizure was in
them. Along Imelda Avenue, the car of the operatives overtook the
connection to petitioners activities of lending money at usurious rates.
taxicab ridden by Lo and Tia and cut into its path which forced the taxi
driver to stop. The other tax cab carrying Lim, however, sped away
Facts:
but was later caught on Retiro Street, Quezon City.
1. Respondent (Mariano Almeda), chief agent of the Anti-Usury Board,
5. Going back to Lo and Tia, the operatives approached the taxicab and
applied for a search warrant to command any peace officer to search
asked the driver to open the baggage compartment. Three pieces of
during day time the store and premises occupied by Sam Sing & Co.,
luggage were retrieved from the back compartment of the vehicle.
situated at Sagay, Occidental Negros as well as the person of the said
The operatives requested from Lo and Tia permission to search their
company, and to seize the documents, notebooks, lists, receipts and
luggage. A tin can of tea was taken out of the red travel bag owned by
promissory notes. Said search warrant was issued by the justice of
Lo. A certain Sgt. Cayabyab, one of the operatives, pried the lid open,
peace of Sagay, Occidental Negros on the same day, May 5, 1938,
pulled out a paper tea bag from the can and pressed it in the middle to
after taking the testimony of Jose Estrada, a special agent of the Antifeel its contents. Some crystalline white powder resembling crushed
Usury Board.
aluminium came out of the bag. The sergeant then opened the tea
2. The said search warrant was to effect search and seizure of articles in
bag and examined its content more closely. He had the three travel
connection with Sam Sing & Co.s activities of lending money at
bags opened for inspection. From the red travel bag, 6 tin cans were
usurious rates of interest, in violation of law.
found, including the one previously opened and nothing else was
3. The search warrant was enforced on the same day, at 10:30 a.m. by
recovered from the other bags.
Almeda, Estrada, two internal revenue agents and two members of the
6. The tea bag contained metamphetamine after examination by the PCPhilippine Army. Immediately after the search and seizure, Almeda
INP Crime Laboratory. One of metamphetamines derivatives is
filed a return with the justice of peace of Sagay with a request that the
metamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu/poor mans cocaine).
office of the Anti-Usury Board be allowed to retain possession of the
7. The three were charged with violation of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
articles seized for examination, pursuant to Section 4, Act 4109.
8. Lo contends that the search and seizure was illegal. He contends that
the officers concerned could very well have procured a search warrant
4.
Petitioner contended that the search warrant is illegal because the

warrant was issued 3 days ahead of the application and Estradas
affidavit is insufficient, and that seizure of the articles by means of a
search warrant for the purpose of using them as evidence in the
criminal case against the petitioners, is unconstitutional because the
warrant becomes unreasonable and amounts to a violation of the
constitutional prohibition against compelling the accused to testify
against himself.
1.
2.
Ruling:
1.
2.
3.
4.
On the first contention, that is, issuance of search warrant 3 days prior
to application, is not supported.
The criticism of petitioners that the search warrant in question was not
issued in accordance with the formalities prescribed by Section 1,
Paragraph 3 of Article III of the Constitution and of section 97, General
Order 58 is unfounded. As a matter of fact, the strict observance of
3.
such formalities was followed. The applicant Almeda, in his
application, swore that he made his own personal investigation and
ascertained that Sam Sing & Co. is lending money without license,
charging usurious rate of interest and is keeping, utilizing and
Ruling:
concealing in the store and premises, occupied by it documents,
notebooks, lists, receipts, promissory notes and book of accounts and
1.
records. Moreover, witness Estrada, in his testimony before the judge,
swore that he knew Sam Sing & Co. and its activities because he
personally investigated the victims who secured loans from Sam Sing &
Co.
The description of the articles seized, as given in the search warrant, is
likewise sufficient. Where, by the nature of the goods seized, their
description must be rather general, it is not required that a technical
description be given, as this would mean that no warrant could issue.
Neither can there be objection to the fact that the objects seized from
petitioners were retained by the agents of the Anti-Usury Board,
2.
instead of being turned over to the justice of the peace of Sagay, for
the reason that the custody of said agents is the custody of the issuing
officer/court, the retention having been approved by the latter.
Pasion vda. De Garcia v. Locsin

De Garcias person, house or store were subjected to a search by virtue of a
search warrant. Said search was performed, together with the PC, by the
agent of the Anti-Usury Board. Due to the confinement of petitioner due to an
illness, the agent showed the search warrant to petitioners bookkeeper.
Seized were two packages of records and a locked-filing cabinet containing
several papers and documents.
Facts:
An agent of the Anti-Usury Board (Mariano Almeda) obtained from the

justice of peace of Tarlac a search warrant commanding any officer of
the law to search the person, house or store of petitioner at Victoria,
Tarlac for certain books, lists, chits, receipts, documents and other
papers relating to her activities as usurer.
On the same date (November 10, 1934), Almeda, together with the
captain of the Philippine Constabulary, went to petitioners office in
Victoria, Tarlac. After showing the search warrant to petitioners
bookkeeper (Alfredo Salas), and without the presence of petitioner who
was ill and confined at the time, Almeda proceeded with the warrants
execution. Two packages of records and a locked filing cabinet
containing several papers and documents were seized. Said papers
and documents were kept for a considerable length of time by the AntiUsury Board and were turned over by it (the Board) to the fiscal who
filed 6 separate criminal cases against petitioner for violation of the
Anti-Usury Law.
After the seizure, petitioner demanded the return of the documents
seized. Moreover, the legality of the search warrant was challenged by
the petitioner twice (January 7 and June 4, 1937).
Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures is declared a

popular right and for a search warrant to be valid, (a) it must be issued
upon probable cause; (b) the probable cause must be determined by
the judge himself and not by the applicant or any other person; (c) in
the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under
oath or affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the
applicant may produce; and (d) the warrant issued must particularly
describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized.
In the case at bar, the existence of probable cause was determined not
be the judge himself but by the applicant.
The constitutional immunity against unreasonable searches and
seizures is a personal right which may be waived. The waiver may be
either express or implied. It is well-settled that to constitute a waiver
of constitutional right, it must appear that: (a) right exists, (b) persons
involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the existence
of such right, and (c) said person had an actual intention to relinquish
said right. The constitutional immunity from unreasonable searches
and seizures, being a personal one, cannot be waived by anyone
except the person whose rights are invaded or one who is expressly
authorized to do so in his/her behalf. In the case at bar, she could not
have objected because she was sick and was not present when the
warrant was served upon. Moreover, upon knowing of the seizure of
some of her documents and papers, she had sent her lawyers to the
office of the Anti-Usury Board to demand the return of the documents
seized. The failure on the part of the petitioner and her bookkeeper to
resist or object to the execution of the warrant does not constitute an
implied waiver of constitutional right, rather it is merely a
demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the law.
Burgos v. Chief of Staf
The newspaper offices of Metropolitan Mail and We Forum were searched,
and office and printing macines, equipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles and
other articles used in printing, publication and distribution of said newspapers,
among others, were seized. The premises were padlocked and sealed, which
resulted to the newspapers discontinuance.
Facts:
1.
2.
justify a finding of the existence of probable cause, said allegation

cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant.
Section 2, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court enumerates the personal
properties that may be seized under a search warrant, namely: (a)
property subject of the offense, (b) property stolen or embezzled and
other proceeds/fruits of the offense, and (c) property used or intended
to be used as the means of committing an offense. Said rule does not
require that the property to be seized should be owned by the person
against whom the search warrant is directed. It may or may not be
owned by him for under subsection (b), one of the properties that may
be seized is stolen property. Stolen property must be owned by one
other than the person in whose possession it may be at the time of the
search and seizure. Ownership, therefore, is of no consequence and it
is sufficient that the person against whom the warrant is directed has
control or possession of the property sought to be seized, as petitioner
was alleged to have in relation to the articles and property seized
under the warrants.
Jose Burgos, Jr. is publisher-editor of the We Forum newspaper.

Together with the Metropolitan Mail office, We Forum newspaper
office was seized searched, and office and printing machines,
equipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles used in
the printing, publication and distribution of said newspapers as well as
numerous papers, documents, books and other written literature. Said
Corro v. Lising
articles were to be alleged to be in the possession and control of
Burgos.
Corro is the publisher and editor of the Philippine Times, whose offices were
2. The search warrant was issued by Judge Ernani Cruz-Pano, issued last subjected to search and seizure of items and articles that were used and being
December 7, 1982. The application for the warrant was done by Col. used as instruments and means of committing the crime of inciting to sedition.
Rolando Abadilla, Intelligence Officer of the PC Metrocom. Said
application was accompanied by the Joint Affidavit by members of the Facts:
Metrocom Intelligence and Security Group (Alejandro Gutierrez, Pedro
Tango), both of whom were under Col. Abadilla and conducted a
1. Petitioner (Rommel Corro) is publisher and editor of the Philippine
surveillance of the premises prior to the filing of the application for the
Times.
warrant.
2. Upon application filed by Lt. Col. Berlin Castillo of the PC-Criminal
3. The search was televised in Channel 7 and widely publicized in all
Investigation Service, respondent (RTC Judge Esteban Lising) issued a
metropolitan dailies thus generating public interest. As a consequence
search warrant on September 29, 1983, authorizing the search and
of the search and seizure, said premises were padlocked and sealed,
seizure of: (a) printed copies of Philippine Times, (b) manuscripts/drafts
with the further result that the printing and publication of said
of articles for publication in the Philippine Times, (c) newspaper
newspapers were discontinued.
dummies of the Philippine Times, (d) subversive documents, articles,
printed matters, handbills, leaflets, banners, and (e) typewriters,
Ruling:
duplicating machines, mimeographing and tape recording machines,
video machines and tapes. Said items/articles were used and being
1. When the search warrant applied for is directed against a newspaper
used as instrument and means of committing the crime of inciting to
publisher or editor in connection with the publication of subversive
sedition (Article 142).
materials, as in the case at bar, the application and/or its supporting
3. On November 6, 1984, petitioner filed an urgent motion to recall
affidavits must contain a specification, stating with particularity the
warrant and to return documents/personal properties alleging, among
alleged subversive material he has published or is intending to publish.
others that said seized properties were not in any way connected with
Mere generalization would not suffice. Thus, the broad statement in
the offense of inciting to sedition and that the documents/papers
Abadillas application that petitioner is in possession or has in his
seized has been rendered moot and academic due to the findings of
control printing equipment and other paraphernalia, news publication,
the Agrava Board having exclusive jurisdiction to determine the facts
committing the offense of subversion punishable under PD 885 as
and circumstances behind the killing of Ninoy Aquino that a military
amended is a mere conclusion of law and does not satisfy the
conspiracy was responsible for Ninoy Aquinos slaying. Said motion
requirements of probable cause. Bereft of such particulars as would
was denied by respondent.
Ruling:
1.
1.
Although the specific section of the Dangerous Drugs Act is not

pinpointed, there is no question at all of the specific offense alleged to
have been committed as a basis for the finding of probable cause. The
search warrant also satisfies the requirement in the Bill of Rights of the
particularity of the description to be made of the place to be searched
and the persons or things to be seized. Thus, the articles seized
under the challenged search warrant were admitted as evidence.
Probable cause, as defined in Burton v. St. Paul, M&M. Ry. Co., is

constituted by such reasons, supported by facts and circumstances,
as will warrant a cautious man in the belief that his actions, and the
means taken in prosecuting it, are legally just and proper. Thus, an
application for search warrant must state with particularity the alleged
subversive materials published or intended to be published by the
petitioner.
Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force v. CA
2. A search warrant should particularly describe the place to be searched Karamfil Import-Export Co., Inc, together with other enterprises, were
and the things to be seized. The evident purpose and intent of this
subjected to search by virtue of 6 search warrants, having been applied for by
requirement is to limit the things to be seized to those, and only those, a particular Atty. Gatmaytan. PADS Task Force issued said search warrants.
particularly described in the search warrant to leave the officers of
the law with no discretion regarding what articles should they should Facts:
seize, to the end that unreasonable searches and seizures may not be
committed.
1. The PADS Task Force through State Prosecutor Jose Rosales issued 6
3. The statement of Col. Castillo in his affidavit state that they have
search warrants against Karamfil Import-Export Co, Inc., P&B
found that the said publication in fact foments distrust and hatred
Enterprise Co., Inc., Philippine Veterans Corporation, Philippine
against the government of the Philippines and its duly constituted
Veterans Development Corporation, Philippine Construction
authorities, together with Lt. Ignacios statement that said periodical
Development Corporation, Philippine Lauan Industries Corporation,
contains articles tending to incite distrust and hatred for the Philippine
Inter-Trade Development, Amelili U. Malaquiok Enterprises and Jaime P.
Government, is a mere conclusion of law and would not satisfy the
Lucman Enterprises. Said search warrants were issued upon
requirements of probable cause.
application by Atty. Napoleon Gatmaytan of the Bureau of Customs and
a deputized member of the PADS Task Force, together with the affidavit
Olaes v. People
of Josefin M. Castro, an operative and investigator of the PADS Task
Force.
Olaes was indicted for violation of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. He was
2. Respondents questioned whether the PADS Task Force is such other
believed to have in his possession marijuana dried
responsible officer allowed/countenanced by the 1973 Constitution to
stalks/leaves/seeds/cigarettes and other regulated/prohibited and exempt
issue warrants of search and seizures. The RTC, therefore, declared the
narcotics preparations.
said search warrants as null and void, and eventually denied
Facts:
reconsideration. In disposing of the petition, the said court found the
material issues to include: (a) competency of RTC to act on petition
1. Adolfo Olaes was believed to have in his possession marijuana dried
filed by the petitioners, (b) validity of the search warrants issued by
stalks/leaves/seeds/cigarettes and other regulated/prohibited and
the respondent State Prosecutor, and (c) whether the petition has
exempt narcotics preparations; thus, indicting petitioners of violation of
become moot and academic because all the search warrants sought to
RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Acts of 1972) despite failure to pinpoint
be quashed had already been implemented and executed.
specific section of same.
3. On appeal, PADS was upheld. The CA declared that the PADS Task
2. Petitioners challenged the admission of evidence seized by virtue of an
Force is a quasi-judicial body, making it co-equal with the RTC.
allegedly invalid warrant issued on March. More so, petitioners claimed
However, on motion for reconsideration by Karamfil, the CA reversed
that the search warrant issued by the judge is unconstitutional because
itself.
it did not indicate the specific offense the petitioners have supposedly
committed; thus, making no valid finding of probable cause as a
Ruling:
justification for the issuance of the said warrant in conformity with the
1. The PADS, as stated in the task forces organic act PD 1936 as
Bill of Rights.
amended by PD 2002, was not meant to exercise quasi-judicial
Ruling:
functions to try and decide claims and execute its judgment. It is the
Presidents arm called upon to combat the vie of dollar salting or the
blackmarketing and salting of foreign exchange. It is rather tasked by
the PD to handle the prosecution of such activities but nothing more.
residence, the team, assisted by Mandaluyong policemen and
Thus, not being a quasi-judicial body, it cannot be considered co-equal
mediamen, went to Hannalie Dance Studio, which petitioner operated.
or coordinate with RTC.
4. Before entering Hannalie Dance Studio, the team served said order on
2. Under the 1887 Constitution, the powers of arrest and search are
a certain Mrs. Flora Salazar who voluntarily allowed them entry into the
exclusive upon judges. The incident, which happened during the
premises. When required to show credentials, Salazar was unable to
effectivity of the 1973 Constitution, had become moot and academic.
produce any. The team confiscated assorted costumes when they
3. When the 1973 Constitution spoke of responsible officer to whom the
chanced upon 12 talent performers practicing a dance number. The
authority to issue arrest and search warrants may be delegated by
confiscation was duly receipted for by Mrs. Asuncion Maguelan and
legislation, it did not furnish the legislator with the license to give that
witnessed by Salazar.
authority to whomsoever it pleased. It is to be noted that the Charter
5. Petitioner, through a letter to POEA, requested that the personal
qualified that the officer himself must be responsible. The Court
properties seized at her residence be returned.
takes responsibility, as used by the Constitution, to mean not only
Issue: Whether the POEA validly issue warrants of search and seizure (or
skill and competence but more significantly, neutrality and
arrest) under Article 38 of the Labor Code.
independence comparable to the impartiality presumed of a judicial
officer. Thus, a prosecutor falls short to be considered having
Ruling:
possessed the latter qualities. The implied exclusion of prosecutors
under the 1973 Constitution was founded on the requirements of due
1. Under the present Constitution, it is only a judge who may issue
process, specifically the assurance to the respondent of an unbiased
warrants of search and arrest. It was declared that mayors may not
inquiry of the charges against him prior to the arrest of his person or
exercise this power, neither by a mere prosecuting body. The
seizure of his property.
exception is in cases of deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens,
4. The Court agreed that the PADS Task Force is meant to exercise
whom the President or the Commissioner of Immigration may order
prosecutorial powers, and on that ground, it cannot be said to be a
arrested, following a final order of deportation, for purpose of
neutral and detached judge to determine the existence of probable
deportation.
cause for purposes of arrest or search.
2. Section 38(c), as amended by PD 1920 and 2018, bestowed to the
Minister of Labor the power to recommend the arrest and detention of
Salazar v. Achacoso
any person engaged in illegal recruitment. More so, PD 1920 gave the
Salazars properties in her residence and dance studio were seized by virtue of
Minister of Labor arrest and closure power. That, the Minister of Labor
a search warrant issued by the POEA.
and Employment has the power to cause the arrest and detention of
such non-licensee or nonholder of authority if after proper investigation
Facts:
it is determined that his activities constitute a danger to national
security and public order or will lead to further exploitation of job1. Petitioner (Hortencia Horty Salazar) was charged by a Rosalie Tesoro
seekers. Meanwhile, PD 2018 bestowed upon the Minister of Labor
wth the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration. According to
search and seizure powers. However, the decrees in question stood as
Tesoro, after she surrendered her PECC Card to petitioner, she
dying vestiges of authoritarian rule in its twilight moments. Thuss, the
promised her of booking in Japan. However, after 9 months, Tesoro
Secretary of Labor, not being a judge, may no longer issue search or
was still in the Philippines and was never able to travel to Japan, and
arrest warrants. Article 38(c) of the Labor Code is declared
that her PECC card was not released by Salazar.
unconstitutional and of no force and effect.
2. Public respondent Atty. Ferdinand Marquez sent a telegram to
petitioner. Respondent requested the petitioner before him being a
Stonehill v. Diokno
part of POEA Anti-Illegal Recruitment Unit. On the same day, having
ascertained that the petitioner had no license to operate a recruitment 42 search warrants were issued by judges, upon application by officers of
government. 29 out of the 42 search warrants were intended for the
agency, administrator Tomas Achacoso issued a closure and seizure
corporations and offices which the petitioners were affiliated with; the rest
order, numbered 1205.
3. The Director of POEA Licensing and Regulation (Atty. Estelita Espiritu) were intended for their residences. Petitioners were charged for violating the
issued an order designation Atty. Marquez, Atty. Abara and Atty. Vistro Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Law, Internal Revenue and RPC. In the
as members of the team tasked to implement the Closure and Seizure performance of the search warrants, several items were seized including books
of accounts, financial records and documents showing all business
Order rendered by Achacoso. After proceeding to petitioners
transactions.
Facts:
1.
2.
3.
A total of 42 search warrants were issued against petitioners and/or

corporations of which they were officers by several judges upon the
application of the officers of government (Diokno as Secretary of
Justice, Jose Lukban as Acting Director of NBI, among others). Said
search warrants directed any peace officer to search the persons of
petitioners (Harry Stonehill, Robert Brooks, John Brooks, Karl Beck)
and/or the premises of their offices, warehouses and/or residences, and
to seize and take possession of personal property, which includes:
books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence,
receipts, ledgers, journals, portfolios, credit journals, typewriters, and
other documents and/or papers showing all business transactions
including disbursements receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss
statements and Bobbins (cigarette wrappers). Said items/articles are
the subject of the offense, stolen or embezzled and proceeds/fruits of
the offense or used or intended to be used as the means of
committing the offense, which is violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff
and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue, and the RPC.
Petitioners contend that the search warrants are null and void for: (a)
they do not describe with particularity the documents, books and
things to be seized. (b) cash money, not mentioned in the warrants,
were actually seized, (c) the warrants were issued to fish evidence
against the aforementioned petitioners in deportation cases filed
against them, (d) the searches and seizures were made illegally, and
(e) the documents, papers and cash money seized were not delivered
to the courts that issued the warrants.
Respondents, in their answer, alleged that the contested search
warrants are valid and have been issued in accordance with law, that
the defects of said warrants, if any, were cured by petitioners consent,
and that the effects seized are admissible in evidence against
petitioners, regardless of the alleged illegality of the aforementioned
searches and seizures.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Ruling:
1.
In deciding this case, the Court split the documents, papers, and things
seized into two major groups: (a) those found and seized in the offices
of the aforementioned corporations and (b) those found and seized in
the residences of petitioners.
2. With regard to the first group, i.e., those found and seized in the offices
of the aforementioned corporations, petitioners have no cause of
action to assail the legality of the contested warrants and of the
seizures made pursuant thereof. It is for the reason that said
corporations have their respective personalities, separate and distinct
from the personality of petitioners, regardless of the amount of shares
of stock or of the interest and whatever office they may hold. The
legality of the seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights
7.
have been impaired and that the objection to an unlawful search and
seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties.
Petitioners may not validly object to the use of articles seized from the
offices as evidence against them since the right to object to the
admission of said papers in evidence belongs exclusively to
corporation to whom the seized effects belong and may not be invoked
by the corporate officers in proceedings against them in their individual
capacity.
As for the second group, i.e., those found and seized in petitioners
residences, said items/articles cannot be used as evidence against
them. None of the requirements laid down by the Constitutional
provision (that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be
determined by the judges in the manner set forth in said provision, and
that the warrant shall particularly describe the things to be seized) has
been complied with in the contested warrants. No specific offense has
been alleged in said applications for the said applications stated that
the persons concerned have violated Central Bank Laws, Tariff and
Customs Laws, Internal Revenue and RPC. As a consequence, it was
impossible for the judges who issued the warrants to have found
existence of probable cause. More so, the applications did not allege
any specific act performed by petitioners.
The constitutional provision on searches and seizures seek to outlaw
general warrants. More so, no search warrant shall issue for more than
one specific offense.
Respondents, citing Moncado v. Peoples Court, maintained that,
despite the unconstitutionality of the searches and seizures, the
items/articles seized are admissible in evidence against petitioners.
However, said doctrine is abandoned.
The non-exclusionary rule is contrary both to the letter and spirit of the
constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures.
(The non-exclusionary rule is that established in Moncado v. Peoples
Court. ) To be sure, if the applicant for a search warrant has competent
evidence to establish probable cause of the commission of a given
crime by a party against whom the warrant is intended, there is no
reason why the applicant should not comply with the requirements of
the fundamental law. Upon the other hand, if he has no such
competent evidence, then it is not possible for the judge to find that
there is probable cause, and, hence, no justification for the issuance of
the warrant. The only possible explanation for its issuance is the
necessity of fishing evidence of the commission of a crime. But, this
fishing expedition is indicative of the absence of evidence to establish
a probable cause.
The search warrants of petitioners residences (group 2) are null and
void. As for the warrants in 29 places, offices and other premises
(group 1), they are valid.
Papa v. Mago
Papa, Chief of Police of Manila and a duly deputized member of the Bureau of
Customs, together with Alagao and other elements of the counter-intelligence
unit, seized 9 bales of goods from two trucks. Said items, according to an
information, were misdeclared and undervalued. The cargo owner, respondent
in this case, claimed that the MPD seized said goods without a search warrant.
Facts:
1.
2.
proceedings. In the case at bar, the moment the BOC actually seized
the goods in question, the BOC acquired jurisdiction over the goods for
the purposes of enforcement of the tariff and customs laws, to the
exclusion of the regular courts.
Petitioner Alagao and his companion policemen had authority to effect
the seizure without any search warrant issued by a competent court.
The Tariff and Customs Code does not require said warrant in the
instant case. The Code authorizes persons having police authority
under Section 2203 to enter, pass through or search any land,
inclosure, warehouse, store or building, not being a dwelling house;
and also to inspect, search and examine any vessel or aircraft and any
trunk, package or envelope or any person on board, or to stop and
search and examine any vehicle, beast or person suspected of holding
or conveying any dutiable or prohibited articles.
Petitioner Martin Alagao (head of the counter-intelligence unit of the

MPD), having received a reliable information that a certain shipment of
personal effects were allegedly misdeclared and undervalued and were
to be released from the customs zone of the port of Manila, conducted
surveillance of said zone. With him were petitioner Ricardo Papa, the
Chief of Police of Manila and a duly deputized member of the BOC, and
Nolasco v. Cruz-Pao
other elements of the counter-intelligence unit. The information which
reached Alagao specified that said misdeclared and undervalued items Aguilar-Roque is accused of rebellion. On August 6, 1984, she was arrested
were loaded on two trucks.
together with Nolasco. 30 minutes after her arrest, the vicinity where she was
2. The trucks left the gate where Alagaos group conducted surveillance. arrested was likewise searched. During said search, 431 items were seized
However, such trucks were later intercepted. The load of the two
and the person in-charge of the premises, Tolentino, was arrested. Petitioners
trucks consisted of 9 bales of goods.
assert that the search warrant partake of a general warrant; thus, said items
3. The cargo was owned by Remedios Mago while the truck was owned by cannot be admitted as evidence.
Valentin Lanopa. In their petition in the CFI of Manila, they claimed
that the MPD seized the goods without search warrant issued by a
Facts:
competent court, and that Papa denied the request of Magos counsel
1. One of the petitioners (Aguilar-Roque) was accused of the Rebellion of
that the bales be not opened and the goods not examined.
Military Commission No. 25. She was arrested on August 6, 1984,
4. The respondent judge issued an order restraining petitioners from
11:30 AM by a Constabulary Security Group (CSG). Arrested with
opening the nine bales in question. However, some bales were already
Roque was Nolasco. 30 minutes later, elements of the CSG searched
opened by examiners of the BOC when the restraining order was
the premises at 239-B Mayon St., Quezon City. During the said search,
received.
one of the petitioners Tolentino, who was the person in-charge of the
5. Respondent contended that, since the inventory of the goods seized
premises, was arrested. 428 documents and written materials were
did not show any article of prohibited importation, such articles should
seized, together with a portable typewriter and 2 wooden boxes.
be released upon her posting of the bond to be determined by court.
2. Three hours prior to the search, Lt. Col. Virgilio G. Saldajeno of the CSG
Petitioners contended however that most of the goods, as shown in the
applied for a search warrant from Judge Pao to be served on 239-B
inventory, were not declared and were thus subject to forfeiture.
Mayon St., Quezon City. Said place was determined to be the leased
Respondent judge issued an order releasing the good upon the filing of
residence of Aguilar-Roque after almost a month of round the clock
the bond in the amount of Php 40,000.00 to which the respondent
surveillance. Said warrant was issued in proceedings entiled PP v.
complied with.
Mila Aguilar-Roque, Accused, Search Warrant No. 80-84 for rebellion.
Issue: Is there a need to procure a warrant before search be made?
This is known to be the Search Warrant Case.
3. Nolasco, Aguilar-Roque and Tolentino wre charged for
Ruling:
subversion/rebellion and/or conspiracy to commit rebellion/subversion.
4. Petitioners, on December 12, prayed in a Motion to Suppress filed with
1. The Bureau of Customs acquires exclusive jurisdiction over imported
MTC Judge Santos that the items (total of 431) be returned to them.
goods, for the purposes of enforcement of the customs laws, from the
Such motion was denied by Judge Santos on the ground that the
moment the goods are actually in possession or control, even if no
validity of the Search Warrant had to be litigated in the Search Warrant
warrant of seizure or detention had previously been issued by the
Case.
Collector of Customs in connection with seizure and forfeiture
5.
Ruling:
1.
Petitioners assert that the search warrant is void because it is a

general warrant since it did not sufficiently describe with particularity
the things subject of the search and seizure and that probable cause
had not been properly established for lack of searching questions.
Facts:
1.
Petitioner was caught during the surveillance of members of the

Integrated National Police (Ursicio Ungab and Umbra Umpar) on
October 16, 1986 at about 10 in the morning. He was caught in
Magallanes St., Davao Citym within the premises of Rizal Memorial
Colleges. Petitioner was carrying a buri bag and was acting
suspiciously, as described by the two members of the INP.
When they approached petitioner, they identified themselves as
members of the INP. Petitioner attempted to flee but was thwarted.
The two officers checked the buri bag and found: 1 caliber .38 Smith &
Wesson revolver with serial no. 770196, 2 rounds of live ammunition
for a .38 caliber gun, a smoke grenade, and 2 live ammunitions for a .
22 caliber gun.
Petitioner was brought to the headquarters and was asked to show the
necessary license or authority to possess firearms and ammunitions
found in his possession, but correspondingly failed to do so. He was
convicted for illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions.
Petitioner contends however that, there being no lawful arrest or
search or seizure, the items which were confiscated from his
possession were inadmissible as evidence against him.
The items enumerated in the search warrant were vaguely described

and not particularized. There is absent a definite guideline to the
2.
searching team as to what items might be lawfully seized this giving
the officers of the law discretion regarding what articles they should
seize. Therefore, it is in the nature of a general warrant and thus
infringes the constitutional mandate requiring particular description of
the things to be seized.
2. Notwithstanding the irregular issuance of the search warrant and
3.
although, ordinarily, the articles seized under an invalid search should
be returned, they cannot be ordered returned in the case at bar, for
some searches may be made without warrant. As declared in Section
12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, a person charged with an offense
4.
may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be
used as proof of the commission of the crime. Said provision is
confined to search, without a search warrant of a person who had been
arrested. It is also a general rule that, as an incident of an arrest, the Ruling:
place or premises where the arrest was made can also be searched
1. Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides
without a search warrant. In the latter case, the extent and
that, among others, an arrest is lawful even without a warrant should a
reasonableness of the search must be decided on its own facts and
person has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
circumstances, and it has been stated that, in the application of
commit an offense in the presence of a peace officer or a private
general rules, there is some confusion in the decisions as to what
person. In the case at bar, the officers did not know what the
constitutes the extent of the place or premises which may be searched.
petitioner had committed or was actually committing; thus, it does not
What must be considered is the balancing of the individuals right to
justify an arrest without a warrant. However, the search thereat in the
privacy and the publics interest in the prevention of crime and the
case at bar is more reasonable than warrantless search and seizure
apprehension of criminals.
conducted at military or police checkpoints. The search done by the
3. Roque charged with rebellion which is a crime against public order, a
officers was effected on the basis of a probable cause. The probable
warrant for her arrest had not been served for a considerable period of
cause is that when the petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted to
time, arrested within the general vicinity of her dwelling, and search of
flee with the buri bag. There was a probable cause that he was
her dwelling was made within a half hour of her arrest did not need a
concealing something illegal in the bag and it was the right and duty of
search warrant for the possible effective results in the interest of public
the police officers to inspect the same.
order.
2. It is too much to require police officers to search bags in the possession
Posadas v. CA
of the petitioner only after they shall have obtained a search warrant
for the purpose. Such an exercise may prove to be useless, futile and
Petitioner was walking within the premises of Rizal Memorial Colleges when he
much too late.
was spotted by 2 members of the INP. He was spotted carrying a buri bag and,
according to the INP members, was acting suspiciously. When he was
People v. de Lara
approached by the officers who duly identified themselves as members of the
Surveillance
was
conducted
on
December 15 and 17, 1986 and January 8,
INP, petitioner attempted to flee but was stopped. The buri bag, when
checked, contained a calibre .38 gun, ammunitions for a .38 calibre and a .22 1987 on the vicinity where de Lara was captured on January 9. One of the
team to execute the buy-bust operation acted as the poseur-buyer. Replying to
calibre gun, and a smoke grenade.
the question of de Lara, said poseur-buyer ordered 2 foils and handed the
marked Php 20 bill. When de Lara, after handing the two foils to the poseurbuyer, sensed the presence of the police, he ran inside the house. He was
pursued by the poseur-buyer and, when subdued by the operatives, de Lara
admitted that he kept prohibited drugs in his house and even showed a plastic
containing prohibited drugs.
Facts:
1.
2.
3.
already conducted by the police as early as December 15 and 17,

1986.
The policemens entry into the house of appellant without a search
warrant was in hot-pursuit of a person caught committing an offense in
flagrante. The arrest that followed the hot-pursuit was valid.
Moreover, the seizure is valid. The seizure of the plastic bag
containing prohibited drugs was the result of appellants arrest inside
his house. A contemporaneous search may be conducted upon the
person of the arrestee and the immediate vicinity where the arrest was
made.
On January 9, 1987, after surveillance of the vicinity of Garrido and

Zamora Sts. At Sta. Ana, Manila last December 15 and 17 of 1986, and
January 8, 1987, a six-man team was formed in order to execute a buybust operation against de Lara and his group. A certain Pfc. Martin
People v. de Gracia
Orolfo, Jr. acted as the poseur-buyer.
There was a coup d etat staged from November 30 to December 9, 1989. A
2. Orolfo and the confidential informant proceeded to the house of de
surveillance was conducted on the night of November 30 till the early morning
Lara where he was seen standing outside. The informant introduced
of December 1 on Eurocar Sales Office located in EDSA. The surveillance team
Orolfo as an interested buyer of marijuana, to which de Lara asked how was attacked by five men coming from the Eurocar building. On December 5,
much he (Orolfo) would buy. Responding to the question, Orolfo
the building was raided and de Gracia, together with the janitors of the
answered two foils handing at the same time the marked Php 20 bill. building, was caught. Found in his possession were high-powered firearms,
de Lara placed the money in the right pocket in his pants,, went inside ammunitions and explosives.
and minutes later came back with the two foils.
3. When de Lara handed the two foils, he sensed the presence of the
Facts:
police; thus, he tried to retrieve the two foils from Orolfo to which the
latter prevented him from doing so. He ran inside the house, with
1. From November 30 to December 9, 1989, there was a coup d etat
Orolfo in pursuit. When he was subdued, de Lara admitted that he
staged by elements of the Reform the Armed Forces Movement
kept prohibited drugs in his house and even showed the arresting
Soldiers of the Filipino People (RAM-SFP). Various government
officers a blue plastic bag with white lining containing prohibited drugs.
establishments and military camps in Metro Manila were bombarded by
Orolfo made a receipt of the articles seized.
the RAM-SFP with their tora-tora planes.
4. de Lara was convicted of violation of Sec. 4, Article II of RA 6425
2. On the night of November 30, 1989 until the early morning of the next
(Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972). In his appeal, he questioned the
day, Major Efren Soria of the Intellience Division conducted a
legality of his arrest and seizure of prohibited drugs found in his house.
surveillance of the Eurocar Sales Offices at EDSA, together with his
team. They were informed that said establishment were being
Ruling:
occupied by elements of the RAM-SFP as a communication command
post. One member of Sorias team (S/Sgt. Henry Aquino) conducted a
1. Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedures
surveillance on foot when the crowd gathered near the Eurocar Office
enumerates situations when an arrest may be lawful even without a
watching the on-going bombardment near Camp Aguinaldo and from
warrant. Two of said situations applicable to the case are: (a) that
said crowd, a group of five men walked towards the car of the
when the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing
surveillance team. When the vehicle sped away, the group of five men
or is attempting to commit an offense in the presence of a peace
fired at the team which resulted in the wounding of a team member
officer/private person, and (b) that when an offense has in fact just
(Sgt. Sagario).
been committed and the peace officer/private person has personal
3. On December 5, 1989, a searching team led by F/Lt. Virgilio Babao,
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has
together with the elements of the 16th Infantry Battalion led by Col.
committed it. In the case at bar, de Lara was caught red-handed in
Delos Santos, raided the Eurocar Sales Office and found ammunitions
delivering two tin foils of marijuana to Orolfo. Having caught the
and explosives. A member of the team, Sgt. Obenia, who was the first
appellant in flagrante as a result of the buy-bust operation, the
one to enter the building, saw de Gracia holding a C-4 and suspiciously
policemen were not only authorized but were also under obligation to
peeping through a door. de Gracia was arrested, together with the
apprehend the drug pusher even without a warrant of arrest.
janitors of the building. They were made to sign an inventory, written
Furthermore, surveillance on the illegal activities of de Lara was
in Tagalog, of the explosives and ammunition confiscated by the
4.
raiding team. No search warrant was secured by the raiding team

because, according to them, there was so much disorder considering
that Camp Aguinaldo was being mopped up by the rebel forces and
there was simultaneous firing within the vicinity of the Eurocar Office,
aside from the fact that courts were consequently closed.
Rolando de Gracia was charged with two separate informations for
illegal possession of ammunition and explosive in furtherance of
rebellion and for attempted homicide. Found in their possession were 5
bundles of dynamites, 6 cartons of M16 ammunition at 20 per carton
and 100 bottles of MOLOTOV bombs. de Gracia was convicted for the
first crime (furtherance of rebellion) but was acquitted of the second
(of attempted homicide).
Ruling:
1.
2.
It is admitted that the military operatives who raided the Eurocar Sales
Office were not armed with a search warrant at that time. Said search
was prompted by intelligence reports that said office was being used
as headquarters by the RAM_-SFP. Prior to the raid, there was a
surveillance conducted on the premises wherein the surveillance team
was fired at by a group of men coming from the Eurocar Office. When
the military operatives raided the place, the occupants refused to open
the door despite requests for them to do so, thereby compelling the
military to break into the office. The Eurocar Sales Office is neither a
gun store nor an armory or arsenal; instead, it was primarily and solely
engaged in the sale of automobiles. The presence of an unusual
quantity of high-powered firearms and explosives could not be
justifiably or colorably explained. In addition, there was general chaos

and disorder at that time. The courts in the surrounding areas wre
obviously closed with the building and houses deserted. Under said
circumstances, the case at bar falls under one of the exceptions to the
prohibition against a warrantless search. In the first place, the military
operatives had reasonable ground to believe that a crime was being
committed after taking into account the facts. More so, there is more
than sufficient probable cause warrant their action. Under the
situation then prevailing, the raiding team had no opportunity to apply
for and secure a search warrant from the courts. The judge himself
manifested that 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.
As enunciated in Umil, et.al v. Ramos, [t]he arrest of persons involved
in the rebellion is more an act of capturing them in the course of an
armed conflict, to quell the rebellion than for the purpose of
immediately prosecuting them in court for a statutory offense. The
arrest, therefore, need not follow the usual procedure in the
prosecution of offenses which requires the determination by a judge of
the existence of probable cause before the issuance of a judicial
warrant of arrest Obviously, the absence of a judicial warrant is no
legal impediment to arresting or capturing persons committing overt
acts of violence against government forces or any other milder acts but
really in pursuance of the rebellious movement. The arrest or capture
is thus impelled by the exigencies of the situation that involves the
very survival of society and its government and duly constituted
authorities.

Cases Searches and Seizures

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

Cases Searches and Seizures

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 Placer v.

Case Digests: Searches and Seizures Mark Justin Mooc

The issuance of a warrant is not a mere ministerial function; it calls for

In this case, upon the issue raised by petitioner Beltran, the

preliminary examinations and investigation of criminal complaints

Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687

A search warrant was issued by respondent judge (Gonzales) on May

Issue: Whether or not a search warrant be annulled on the ground that it

The judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and

People v. Bolasa y Nakoboan

PO3 Dante Salonga and PO3 Albert Carizon were informed by an

Case Digests: Searches and Seizures Mark Justin Mooc

marijuana inside their room, he immediately ordered her to leave. As

An arrest is lawful even in the absence of a warrant: (a) when the

Section 5(a) refers to arrest in flagrante delicto. In flagrante delicto

Accused (Ricardo Alunday alias Kayad), without being authorized by

Bache Co. [Phil], Inc. v. Ruiz

On February 24, 1970, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Misael

Petitioner (Nemesio Prudente) was implicated for having violated PD

Meanwhile, a member of the searching team (Ricardo Abando) alleged

materials confiscated belonged to the magazine stand owners and

It is basic that searches and seizures may be done only through a

searches and check-ups, especially at night or at dawn, without the

Ruben Burgos was convicted for the crime of Illegal Possession of

Based on the statement given by Cesar Masamlok (a former NPA),

Petitioner contended that the search warrant is illegal because the

Pasion vda. De Garcia v. Locsin

An agent of the Anti-Usury Board (Mariano Almeda) obtained from the

Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures is declared a

justify a finding of the existence of probable cause, said allegation

Jose Burgos, Jr. is publisher-editor of the We Forum newspaper.

Although the specific section of the Dangerous Drugs Act is not

Probable cause, as defined in Burton v. St. Paul, M&M. Ry. Co., is

A total of 42 search warrants were issued against petitioners and/or

Petitioner Martin Alagao (head of the counter-intelligence unit of the

Petitioners assert that the search warrant is void because it is a

Petitioner was caught during the surveillance of members of the

The items enumerated in the search warrant were vaguely described

already conducted by the police as early as December 15 and 17,

On January 9, 1987, after surveillance of the vicinity of Garrido and

raiding team. No search warrant was secured by the raiding team

Case Digests: Searches and Seizures Mark Justin Mooc

justifiably or colorably explained. In addition, there was general chaos

You might also like