ELI LUI, ET AL. VS.

MATILLANO, May 27, 2004

Right against unreasonable searches and seizures;
Mission Order does not authorize an illegal search. Waiver
of the right against an unreasonable search and seizure.
In search of the allegedly missing amount of P45,000.00 owned
by the employer, the residence of a relative of the suspect was
forcibly open by the authorities by kicking the kitchen door to
gain entry into the house. Thereafter, they confiscated different
personal properties therein which were allegedly part of those
stolen from the employer. They were in possession of a mission
order but later on claimed that the owner of the house gave his
consent to the warrantless search. Are the things admissible in
evidence? Can they be sued for damages as a result of the said
warrantless search and seizure?
Held:
The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a
personal right which may be waived expressly or impliedly. BUT A
WAIVER BY IMPLICATION CANNOT BE PRESUMED. There must be
clear and convincing evidence of an actual intention to relinquish
the right. There must be proof of the following:
a.

that the right exists;

b.
that the person involved had knowledge, either
constructive or actual, of the existence of said right;
c.
that the said person had an actual intention to relinquish
the right.
Finally, the waiver must be made voluntarily, knowingly and
intelligently in order that the said is to be valid.
The search was therefore held illegal and the members of the
searching party held liable for damages in accordance with the
doctrine laid down in Lim vs. Ponce de Leon and MHP Garments
vs. CA.