Cases Sobra

1 Burgos v.
Chief of Staf
Placer v. Villanueva
In relation to the assassination of the representative of Masbate and his
security escorts, the MTC of Masbate, after the presentation of affidavits
and answers of the prosecutions witnesses, concluded that probable
cause existed for issuance of a warrant of arrest against Vicente Lim and
company. When the hearing of the case was transferred to Makati RTC
and upon petition of spouses Lim for transmission of initial records of the
preliminary investigation, the respondent Judge concluded that probable
cause existed due to the declaration made by two competent officers the
MTC of Masbate and the Fiscal.
Facts:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The Congressman of the municipality of Masbate, Masbate (Moises

Espinos, Sr.) and his security escorts (Provincial Guards Antonio
Cortes, Gaspar Amaro and Artemio Fuentes) were attacked and
killed by a lone assassin. One security escort (Dante Siblante)
survived the assassination plot but sufered 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 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
difered 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 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
Case Digests: Searches and Seizures Mark Justin Mooc
6.
investigation conducted in Masbate. These were denied by the

respondent court for lack of merit.
Felix said that there exists probable cause that the ofense of
multiple murder was committed affirmed upon review by the
Provincial Prosecutor... Considering that both the two competent
officers to whom such duty was entrusted by law have declared the
existence of probable cause, each information is complete in form
and substance, and there is no visible defect on its face
Issue: Whether or not a judge may issue a warrant of arrest without bail by
simply relying on the prosecutions certification and recommendation that
a probable cause exists
Ruling:
1.
2.
3.
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
(efective 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.
2 Burgos v. Chief of Staf

4.
Preliminary investigation should be distinguished as to whether it is

an investigation for the determination of a sufficient ground for the
filing 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
2.
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.
Ruling:
The judge is not required to personally examine the complainant
and his witnesses. What the Constitution underscores is the
exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy
himself of the existence of probable cause. Instead, he shall (a)
personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents
submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause
and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or (b) if on the
basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the
fiscals report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of

witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence
of probable cause. This procedure should be followed, otherwise
judges would be unduly laden with the 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.
1.
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
Ruling/Decision:
1.
To be valid, a search warrant must be supported by probable cause

to be determined by the judge or some authorized officer after
2.
3.
4.
examining the complainant and the witnesses he may produce.

There must be a specific description of the place to be searched
and the things to be seized, to prevent arbitrary and indiscriminate
use of the warrant. Probable cause, as described by Judge Escolin
in Burgos v. Chief of Staf, refers to such facts and circumstances
which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to
believe that an ofense has been committed and that the objects
sought in connection with the ofense are in the place sought to be
searched. The probable cause must refer to only one specific
ofense.
The applicant (Capt. Quillosa) was asking for the issuance of the
search warrant on the basis of mere hearsay and not of information
personally known to him as required by settled jurisprudence.
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 warrant; and (b) absent such a warrant, the right thereto
was not validly waived by the petitioner. In short, the military
officers who 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.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Ruling:
1.
Facts:
1.
2.
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 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.
2.
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 ofense in his presence; (b) when an ofense
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
3.
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 efecting 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.
4.
2000. Also, he contended that the arresting officers failure to

secure a warrant can never be justified by the urgency of the
situation.
Ruling:
1.
2.
3.
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).
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.
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.
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 warrantless arrest was not done under any of
the circumstances enumerated in Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985
Rules of Court. He insisted that the arresting officers had 3 months
within which to secure a warrant from the time they received the
information about an existing marijuana plantation in Mount
Churyon, Sadanga in May 2000 until they efected arrest on August
4.
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 person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is about to commit an ofense in his presence; (b)
when an ofense 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.
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 ofense, 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 efected 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 counselassisted plea during his arraignment; by his actively participating
in the trial and by not raising the objection before his arraignment.

People v. Cruz
Members of the CRIG nabbed two persons who were to sell a stolen car.
After the carnap suspects were brought to the police headquarters, they
led the CRIG team to the place where other members of the carnap gang
were waiting. The accused, Cruz, was found to have possessed a calibre .
38 paltik revolver, one live ammunition and a hand grenade in his clutch
bag. He was charged with the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms and
Ammunition. He 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 arrested for carnapping and not for illegal
possession of firearm and ammunition.
Harvey v. Santiago
Harvey, together with Sherman and Del Elshout, were alien pedophiles and
were caught to have possessed articles/instruments indicating that they
were engaged in child prostitution. Prior to the apprehension, members of
the Commission on Immigration and Deportation performed close
surveillance in Pagsanjan, Laguna. Petitioners questioned the validity of
their detention due to the violation of the right against unreasonable
searches and seizures.
Facts:
1.
Facts:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Eight members of CRIG, led by Lt. Noel Manabat, stationed at

Camp Bagong Diwa acted on an intelligence information that on
noon of May 9, 1986 a stolen car was to be sold in Magallanes,
Makati. The team nabbed Romeo Fernandez and Joey Flores and
brought them to headquarters where they were questioned.
The two carnap suspects led the CRIG team to 61 Mabituan St.,
Masambong, QC where they alleged the other members of the
carnap gang were waiting for their shares of the proceeds from the
sale of a vehicle.
A calibre .38 paltik revolver, one live ammunition and a hand
grenade, contained in a clutch bag, were found near accused
(Reynaldo Cruz alias Rene Hapon). For this reason, he was charged
with the crime of Illegal Possession of Firearm and Ammunition. He
denied ownership or possession of the firearm and hand grenade,
as well as the bag which contained the said items. He claimed that
the bag and its contents belonged to Joey Flores and was planted
by PC operatives.
Cruz contended that the firearm and explosive in question cannot
be used as evidence against him since the PC officers had no
warrant of arrest when they entered the apartment, in violation of
his constitutional rights. Moreover, he contended that the
unlicensed firearm and explosive were found when they arrested
the accused and his companions for carnapping and not for
illegal possession of firearm ammunition.
Ruling:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
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.
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.
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. Meanwhile, Del Elshout, the after mission report dated
February 27, 1988, revealed that there were two children ages 14
and 16 which subject readily accepted having been in his care and
live-in for quite sometime.
Deportation proceedings were instituted against the petitioners for
being undesirable aliens under Section 69 of the Revised
Administrative Code, being pedophiles who are inimical to public
morals, public health and public safety.
On April 4, 1988, petitioners availed of a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus. They question the validity of their detention on the
ground that, among others, respondent (Miriam Santiago) violated
Section 2, Article III prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures
since the CID agents were not clothed with warrants of arrest,
search and seizure as required by said provision.
Ruling:
The police officers failed to comply with the strictures laid down by
the Court for police officers to follow in a custodial investigation
especially in the waiver of constitutional rights made without the
assistance or even in the presence of counsel.
1.
The right against unreasonable searches and seizures as

guaranteed 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 constitutional requirements of a valid search
warrant or warrant of arrest is that it must be based upon probable
cause.

2.
3.
An arrest may be efected by a peace officer or even a private

person, even without warrant, when the ofense has, in fact, been
committed 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 based on probable cause determined after close
surveillance for three months during which period their activities
were monitored. The existence of probable cause justified the
arrest and the seizure of the photo negatives, photographs and
posters without warrant.
That petitioners were not caught in the act does not make their
arrest illegal. They were found with boys in their respective rooms,
the one with Sherman being naked. Under those circumstances,
the CID agents had reasonable grounds to believe that petitioners
had committed pedophilia.
4.
5.
Ruling:
1.
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.
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.
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
ofense. 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 ofense.
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
ofense for which the warrant is being issued.

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.
failed to allege under oath that the issuance of the search warrant
on a Saturday was urgent.
Ruling:
1.
Facts:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
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.
Meanwhile, a member of the searching team (Ricardo Abando)
alleged in his affidavit that he found in the drawer of a cabinet
inside the washroom of Dr. Prudentes office a bulging brown
envelope with 3 live fragmentation hand grenades separately
wrapped with old newspapers.
Petitioner however moved to quash the search warrant on grounds
that (a) the complainants lone witness (Lt. Florenio Angeles) had
no personal knowledge of the facts which formed the basis for the
issuance of the search warrant, (b) examination of the said witness
was not in the form of searching questions and answers, (c) the
search warrant was a general warrant for the reason that it did not
particularly describe the place to be searched and that it failed to
charge one specific ofense, and (d) the search warrant was issued
in violation of Circular No. 19 of the SC in that the complainant
2.
3.
4.
For a valid search warrant to issue, there must be probable cause

which is to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to
be searched and the persons or things to be seized. The probable
cause must be in connection with one specific ofense and the
judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine in the
form of searching questions and answers, in writing and under
oath, the complainant and any witness he may produce, on facts
personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn
statements together with any affidavits submitted.
As held in Alvarez v. CFI, the true test of sufficiency of a deposition
or affidavit to warrant issuance of a search warrant is whether it
has been drawn in a manner that perjury could be charged thereon
and the affiant be held liable for damage caused. The oath
required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal
knowledge of the applicant for search warrant, and/or his
witnesses, not of the facts merely reported by a person whom one
considers reliable. Tested by the above standard, the allegations of
the witness do not come up to the level of facts of his personal
knowledge so much so that he cannot be held liable for perjury for
such allegations in causing the issuance of the questioned search
warrant.
The rule is, that a description of a place to be searched is sufficient
if the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable efort, ascertain
and identify the place intended. In the case at bar, the application
for 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 said university. The designation of the place to be
searched sufficiently complied with the constitutional injunction
that a search warrant must be particularly describe the place to be
searched, even if there were several rooms at the ground floor and
second floor of PUP.
Applicants failure to state under oath the urgent need for the
issuance of the search warrant, his application having been filed on
a Saturday, rendered the questioned warrant invalid for being
violative of SC Circular 19 which provides that: applications filed
after office hours, during Saturdays, Sundays and holidays shall
likewise be taken cognizance of and acted upon by any judge of
the court having jurisdiction of the place to be searched, but in
such cases, the applicant shall certify and state the facts under
oath to the satisfaction of the judge that the issuance is urgent.

Guanzon v. De Villa
The military and police officers conducted Areal Target Zonings or
saturation drives in Metro Manila, specifically on places where the
subversives, as pinpointed by said authorities, were hiding. During these
saturation drives, police and military units cordon an area of more than
one residence and sometimes the whole barangay or areas of barangays,
without any search warrant or warrant of arrest. Petitioners claimed that
said saturation drives followed a common pattern of human rights abuses,
as such, sought for its stoppage.
Facts:
1.
2.
The petitioners, who are of legal age, bona fide residents of Metro
Manila, and taxpayers and leaders in their respective communities,
sought to prohibit the military and police officers from conducting
Areal Target Zonings or saturation drives in Metro Manila.
Petitioners claim that on various dates from March 5, 1987 till
November 3 of the same year, various saturation drives were
conducted by the respondents. Added by the petitioners, that
these saturation drives are in critical areas pinpointed by the
military and police as places where the subversives are hiding.
The arrests ranged from 7 persons (July 20, Bankusay, Tondo) to
1,500 (November 3, Lower Maricaban, Pasay City) and that same
followed a common pattern of human rights abuses like police and
military units, without any search warrant or warrant of arrest,
cordon an area of more than one residence and sometimes whole
barangay or areas of barangay in Metro Manila, from the dead of
the night or early morning hours and residents are herded as cows
with men ordered to strip down to their briefs and examined for
tattoo marks and other imagined marks.
3.
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:
1.
2.
Ruling:
There appears to have been no impediment to securing search
warrants or warrants of arrest before any houses were searched or
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 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 afected
residences or buildings, round up suspected rebels and otherwise
quell the mutiny or rebellion without having to secure search
warrants and without violating the Bill of Rights.
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.
1.
3.
4.
5.
Pursuing an Anti-Smut Campaign initiated by the Mayor of Manila

(Ramon Bagatsing) on December 1 and 3, 1983, members of the
Metropolitan Police Force of Manila seized and confiscated from
dealers, distributors, newsstand owners and peddlers along Manila
sidewalks magazines, publications and other reading materials
believed to be obscene, pornographic and indecent. The said
materials included Pinoy Playboy whose co-editor and publisher
is the petitioner (Leo Pita). The said materials were burned in
public along the University Belt along CM Recto Avenue, in the
presence of Mayor Bagatsing and several officers and members of
various student organizations.
Petitioner, on December 7, 1983, prayed for issuance of the writ of
preliminary injunction against Mayor Bagatsing and the
superintendent of the Western Police District of Manila (Narciso
Cabrera), restraining them and their agents from confiscating Pinoy
Playboy magazines or from preventing the sale of the said
magazine for it, according to Pita, is a decent, artistic, and
educational magazine.
Five days laters, petitioner filed an urgent motion for issuance of a
TRO against indiscriminate seizure, confiscation and burning of the
said magazine pending hearing on the petition for preliminary
injunction.
In opposing petitioners application for a writ of preliminary
injunction, Mayor Bagatsing pointed that during the anti-smut
campaign, the 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.

Ruling:
1.
2.
3.
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
The NCR-District Command established checkpoints in various points of
Valenzuela, Metro Manila. According to petitioner, who had been subjected
to checkpoint once, the checkpoints caused worries among the residents
of Valenzuela, especially the possibility of getting harassed.
4.
Ruling:
1.
2.
Facts:
1.
2.
Activated through LOI 02/87 of the Philippine General

Headquarters, AFP, the NCR District Command sought to conduct
security operations within its area of responsibility and peripheral
areas for the purpose of establishing an efective territorial
defense, maintaining peace and order, and providing an
atmosphere conducive to the social, economic and political
development of the NCR. As part of its duty to maintain peace and
order, the NCRDC installed checkpoints in various parts of
Valenzuela, Metro Manila.
Petitioner (Ricardo Valmonte), together with the Union of Lawyers
and Advocates for Peoples Rights, contended that said
checkpoints caused worries among the residents of Valenzuela,
including the possibility of getting harassed. Aside from the
possibility of getting harassed, residents worry of their safety due
to the arbitrary, capricious and whimsical disposition of the military
manning the checkpoints, considering that their cars and vehicles
are being subjected to regular searches and check-ups, especially
at night or at dawn, without the benefit of a search warrant and/or
court order.
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 of 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 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.
4.
No proof has been presented before the Court to show that, in the
course of their routine checks, the military indeed committed
specific violations of petitioners right against unlawful searches
and seizures, 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 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 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.

Facts:
1.
2.
3.
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 efect search in his house; thus, making him liable for the crime
of illegal possession.
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 opened, 4 suspicious-looking objects wrapped in brown packing tape
were found. When said objects were opened, the wrapped objects turned
out to be hashish, a derivative of marijuana. Moreover, in each of his bags,
teddy bears contained hashish.
Facts:
1.
Ruling:
1.
2.
3.
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 ofense in his presence, no search warrant or
warrant of arrest is needed to make the arrest valid. Moreover,
said ofense 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.
2.
3.
4.
On May 11, 1989, the Commanding Officer (Capt. Alen Vasco) of

the First Regional Command (NARCOM) ordered his men to set up a
temporary checkpoint at Kilometer 14, Acop, Tublay, Mountain
Province. Said checkpoint was for the purpose of checking all
vehicles coming from the Cordillera Region and was prompted by
persistent reports that vehicles coming from Sagada were
transporting marijuana and other prohibited drugs. Moreover, the
Commanding Officer received an information that a Caucasian
(Mikael Malmstedt) coming from Sagada had in his possession
prohibited drugs.
In the afternoon of same day, the bus where Malmstedt was riding
was stopped. Malmstedt was on his way to Angeles City and would
then proceed to Manila to catch his flight out of the country two
days later. In the bus, 2 NARCOM officers (Sgt. Fider and CIC
Galutan) boarded the bus and announced that they were members
of the NARCOM and that they would conduct an inspection. Said
officers started their inspection from the front going towards the
rear of the bus where the accused was seated.
Galutan noticed a bulge on Malmstedts waist. He suspected that
said bulge was a gun, thus he asked for the latters passport and
other identification papers to which he (Malmstedt) failed to
comply. For failure to comply with presenting passport and
identification papers, Galutan required Malmstedt to bring out
whatever it was that was 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 noticed 4 suspicious-looking
objects wrapped in brown packing tape. When opened, the
wrapped objects turned out to contain hashish, a derivative of
marijuana.
Malmstedt was invited for questioning outside. But before leaving
the bus, he stopped to get 2 travelling bags. The officers, upon
Malmstedts alighting from the bus, got the bags and opened them.
5.
6.
A teddy bear, having bulges, was found in each bag. After the
bags were opened, it was then that Malmstedt presented his
passport.
Malmstedt was brought to the headquarters of NARCOM at Camp
Dangwas, La Trinidad, Benguet for further investigation. At the
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 efects.
Ruling:
1.
2.
There are exceptions where a search may be made pursuant to a

lawful arrest which need not to obtain a search warrant. These
circumstances include: (a) when the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing or is attempting to commit an
ofense, in the presence of a peace officer or a private person; (b)
when the ofense was committed and the peace officer/private
person has personal knowledge of facts indicating 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
institution/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. In the case at bar,
accused was searched and arrested while transporting prohibited
drugs. A crime was actually being committed by the accused and
he was caught in flagrante delicto. Thus, the search made upon
his personal efects falls squarely under the first circumstance
provided by the law which allow a warrantless search incident to a
lawful arrest.
The acts of the NARCOM officers in requiring the accused to open
his pouch bag and in opening one of the wrapped objects inside
said bag as well as the two travel bags containing 2 teddy bears
with hashish stufed inside them, were prompted by Malmstedts
own attempt to hide his identity by refusing to present his
passport, and by the information received by the NARCOM that a
Caucasian coming from Sagada had prohibited drugs in his
possession. To deprive the NARCOM agents of the ability and
facility to act accordingly, including, to search even without
warrant, in the light of such circumstance, would be to sanction
impotence and inefectiveness in law enforcement, to the
detriment of society.
People v. Lo Ho Wing (alias Peter Lo), Lim Cheng Huat (alias

Antonio Lim) and Reynaldo Tia
Reynaldo Tia, a deep penetration agent of the SOG, reported of his
undercover activities on the suspected criminal syndicate led by Lo and
Lim. Moreover, Tia informed his superior regarding their return to the
country. Upon arrival in the Philippines, Lo and Tia rode in one taxi cab
while Lim rode in another. They were pursued by the members of the
NARCOM and were stopped. With permission of Lo and Tia, a tin can of tea
was taken out of the red travel bag and, upon examination by the PC-INP
Crime Laboratory, contained metamphetamine. Petitioner contend that a
warrant was needed.
Facts:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
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.
Tia was introduced to Lim Cheng Huat (Antonio Lim) where the
latter expressed a desire to hire a male travel companion for his
business trips abroad. Tia ofered his services and was hire.
Together with Lim, Tia, in one of the meetings in China, was
introduced to Lo Ho Wing (Peter Lo) whom tia found out to be the
person he was to accompany to China in lieu of Lim.
As deep penetration agent, Tia regularly submitted reports of his
undercover activities on the suspected criminal syndicate to Capt.
Luisito Palmera, head of Oplan Sharon 887 the group created in
order to bus the suspected syndicate. Tia informed Palmera of
their return to the Philippines after they (Lo and Tia) left for Hong
Kong.
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 taxicab while Lim followed in another taxi cab.
Meanwhile, the operatives of the NARCOM (Narcotics Command),
having been notified by Palmera, stationed themselves in strategic
places around the arrival area. Upon seeing Lo and Tia leave the
airport, the operatives followed them. Along Imelda Avenue, the
car of the operatives overtook the 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 but was later caught on
Retiro Street, Quezon City.
Going back to Lo and Tia, the operatives approached the taxicab
and asked the driver to open the baggage compartment. Three
pieces of luggage were retrieved from the back compartment of
the vehicle. The operatives requested from Lo and Tia permission
6.
7.
8.
to search their luggage. A tin can of tea was taken out of the red
travel bag owned by Lo. A certain Sgt. Cayabyab, one of the
operatives, pried the lid open, pulled out a paper tea bag from the
can and pressed it in the middle to feel its contents. Some
crystalline white powder resembling crushed aluminium came out
of the bag. The sergeant then opened the tea bag and examined
its content more closely. He had the three travel bags opened for
inspection. From the red travel bag, 6 tin cans were found,
including the one previously opened and nothing else was
recovered from the other bags.
The tea bag contained metamphetamine after examination by the
PC-INP Crime Laboratory. One of metamphetamines derivatives is
metamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu/poor mans cocaine).
The three were charged with violation of Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972.
Lo contends that the search and seizure was illegal. He contends
that the officers concerned could very well have procured a search
warrant 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 efect search.
2.
3.
4.
Ruling:
1.
2.
The search and seizure supported by a valid warrant is not an

absolute rule. As set forth in Manipon, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, there
are at least 3 well-recognized exceptions, namely: (a) a search
incidental to an arrest, (b) a search of a moving vehicle, and (c)
seizure of evidence in plain view. In the case at bar, there is a
clear showing that the search in question, having been made in a
moving vehicle, does not need a valid warrant to efect search.
A warrantless search of a moving vehicle is justified on the ground
that it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle
can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the
warrant must be sought.
Ruling:
1.
2.
Yee Sue Kuy v. Almeda

A search warrant was issued, upon application by Almeda and presentation
of Estrada as witness, to effect search and seizure of store and premises of
Sam & Sing Co., which is owned by petitioner. Said search and seizure was
in connection to petitioners activities of lending money at usurious rates.
Facts:
1.
Respondent (Mariano Almeda), chief agent of the Anti-Usury Board,

applied for a search warrant to command any peace officer to
search during day time the store and premises occupied by Sam
Sing & Co., situated at Sagay, Occidental Negros as well as the
person of the said company, and to seize the documents,
notebooks, lists, receipts and promissory notes. Said search
warrant was issued by the justice of peace of Sagay, Occidental
Negros on the same day, May 5, 1938, after taking the testimony
of Jose Estrada, a special agent of the Anti-Usury Board.
The said search warrant was to efect search and seizure of articles
in connection with Sam Sing & Co.s activities of lending money at
usurious rates of interest, in violation of law.
The search warrant was enforced on the same day, at 10:30 a.m.
by Almeda, Estrada, two internal revenue agents and two members
of the Philippine Army. Immediately after the search and seizure,
Almeda filed a return with the justice of peace of Sagay with a
request that the office of the Anti-Usury Board be allowed to retain
possession of the articles seized for examination, pursuant to
Section 4, Act 4109.
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.
3.
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 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 concealing in the store and premises,
occupied by it documents, notebooks, lists, receipts, promissory
notes and book of accounts and 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
4.
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, 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.
2.
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:
1.
2.
3.
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 Anti-Usury 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).
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.
Ruling:
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.
1.
2.
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 articles were to be alleged to be in
the possession and control of Burgos.
The search warrant was issued by Judge Ernani Cruz-Pano, issued
last December 7, 1982. The application for the warrant was done
by Col. Rolando Abadilla, Intelligence Officer of the PC Metrocom.
Said application was accompanied by the Joint Affidavit by
members of the Metrocom Intelligence and Security Group
3.
(Alejandro Gutierrez, Pedro Tango), both of whom were under Col.

Abadilla and conducted a surveillance of the premises prior to the
filing of the application for the warrant.
The search was televised in Channel 7 and widely publicized in all
metropolitan dailies thus generating public interest. As a
consequence of the search and seizure, said premises were
padlocked and sealed, with the further result that the printing and
publication of said newspapers were discontinued.
Facts:
1.
2.
Ruling:
1.
2.
When the search warrant applied for is directed against a

newspaper publisher or editor in connection with the publication of
subversive materials, as in the case at bar, the application and/or
its supporting affidavits must contain a specification, stating with
particularity the alleged subversive material he has published or is
intending to publish. Mere generalization would not suffice. Thus,
the broad statement in Abadillas application that petitioner is in
possession or has in his control printing equipment and other
paraphernalia, news publication, committing the ofense of
subversion punishable under PD 885 as amended is a mere
conclusion of law and does not satisfy the requirements of
probable cause. Bereft of such particulars as would 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 ofense, (b) property stolen or embezzled
and other proceeds/fruits of the ofense, and (c) property used or
intended to be used as the means of committing an ofense. 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.
Corro v. Lising
Corro is the publisher and editor of the Philippine Times, whose offices
were subjected to search and seizure of items and articles that were used
and being used as instruments and means of committing the crime of
inciting to sedition.
3.
Petitioner (Rommel Corro) is publisher and editor of the Philippine

Times.
Upon application filed by Lt. Col. Berlin Castillo of the PC-Criminal
Investigation Service, respondent (RTC Judge Esteban Lising)
issued a search warrant on September 29, 1983, authorizing the
search and seizure of: (a) printed copies of Philippine Times, (b)
manuscripts/drafts of articles for publication in the Philippine
Times, (c) newspaper dummies of the Philippine Times, (d)
subversive documents, articles, printed matters, handbills, leaflets,
banners, and (e) typewriters, duplicating machines,
mimeographing and tape recording machines, video machines and
tapes. Said items/articles were used and being used as instrument
and means of committing the crime of inciting to sedition (Article
142).
On November 6, 1984, petitioner filed an urgent motion to recall
warrant and to return documents/personal properties alleging,
among others that said seized properties were not in any way
connected with the ofense of inciting to sedition and that the
documents/papers seized has been rendered moot and academic
due to the findings of the Agrava Board having exclusive
jurisdiction to determine the facts and circumstances behind the
killing of Ninoy Aquino that a military conspiracy was responsible
for Ninoy Aquinos slaying. Said motion was denied by respondent.
Ruling:
1.
2.
3.
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.
A search warrant should particularly describe the place to be
searched and the things to be seized. The evident purpose and
intent of this requirement is to limit the things to be seized to
those, and only those, particularly described in the search warrant
to leave the officers of the law with no discretion regarding what
articles should they should seize, to the end that unreasonable
searches and seizures may not be committed.
The statement of Col. Castillo in his affidavit state that they have
found that the said publication in fact foments distrust and hatred
against the government of the Philippines and its duly constituted
authorities, together with Lt. Ignacios statement that said
periodical contains articles tending to incite distrust and hatred

for the Philippine Government, is a mere conclusion of law and
would not satisfy the requirements of probable cause.
Olaes v. People
Olaes was indicted for violation of Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. He was
believed to have in his possession marijuana dried
stalks/leaves/seeds/cigarettes and other regulated/prohibited and exempt
narcotics preparations.
2.
Facts:
1.
2.
Adolfo Olaes was believed to have in his possession marijuana

dried stalks/leaves/seeds/cigarettes and other regulated/prohibited
and exempt narcotics preparations; thus, indicting petitioners of
violation of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Acts of 1972) despite failure
to pinpoint specific section of same.
Petitioners challenged the admission of evidence seized by virtue
of an allegedly invalid warrant issued on March. More so,
petitioners claimed that the search warrant issued by the judge is
unconstitutional because it did not indicate the specific ofense the
petitioners have supposedly committed; thus, making no valid
finding of probable cause as a justification for the issuance of the
said warrant in conformity with the Bill of Rights.
Although the specific section of the Dangerous Drugs Act is not

pinpointed, there is no question at all of the specific ofense
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.
Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force v. CA

Karamfil Import-Export Co., Inc, together with other enterprises, were
subjected to search by virtue of 6 search warrants, having been applied for
by a particular Atty. Gatmaytan. PADS Task Force issued said search
warrants.
Facts:
1.
Ruling:
1.
Ruling:
1.
3.
The PADS Task Force through State Prosecutor Jose Rosales issued
6 search warrants against Karamfil Import-Export Co, Inc., P&B
Enterprise Co., Inc., Philippine Veterans Corporation, Philippine
Veterans Development Corporation, Philippine Construction
Development Corporation, Philippine Lauan Industries Corporation,
Inter-Trade Development, Amelili U. Malaquiok Enterprises and

Jaime P. Lucman Enterprises. Said search warrants were issued
upon application by Atty. Napoleon Gatmaytan of the Bureau of
Customs and a deputized member of the PADS Task Force, together
with the affidavit of Josefin M. Castro, an operative and investigator
of the PADS Task Force.
Respondents questioned whether the PADS Task Force is such
other responsible officer allowed/countenanced by the 1973
Constitution to issue warrants of search and seizures. The RTC,
therefore, declared the said search warrants as null and void, and
eventually denied reconsideration. In disposing of the petition, the
said court found the material issues to include: (a) competency of
RTC to act on petition filed by the petitioners, (b) validity of the
search warrants issued by the respondent State Prosecutor, and (c)
whether the petition has become moot and academic because all
the search warrants sought to be quashed had already been
implemented and executed.
On appeal, PADS was upheld. The CA declared that the PADS Task
Force is a quasi-judicial body, making it co-equal with the RTC.
However, on motion for reconsideration by Karamfil, the CA
reversed itself.
2.
3.
The PADS, as stated in the task forces organic act PD 1936 as

amended by PD 2002, was not meant to exercise quasi-judicial
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. Thus, not being a quasi-judicial body,
it cannot be considered co-equal or coordinate with RTC.
Under the 1887 Constitution, the powers of arrest and search are
exclusive upon judges. The incident, which happened during the
efectivity of the 1973 Constitution, had become moot and
academic.
When the 1973 Constitution spoke of responsible officer to whom
the authority to issue arrest and search warrants may be delegated
by legislation, it did not furnish the legislator with the license to
give that authority to whomsoever it pleased. It is to be noted that
the Charter qualified that the officer himself must be responsible.
The Court takes responsibility, as used by the Constitution, to
mean not only skill and competence but more significantly,
neutrality and independence comparable to the impartiality
presumed of a judicial officer. Thus, a prosecutor falls short to be
considered having possessed the latter qualities. The implied
exclusion of prosecutors under the 1973 Constitution was founded
on the requirements of due process, specifically the assurance to
4.
the respondent of an unbiased inquiry of the charges against him

prior to the arrest of his person or seizure of his property.
The Court agreed that the PADS Task Force is meant to exercise
prosecutorial powers, and on that ground, it cannot be said to be a
neutral and detached judge to determine the existence of
probable cause for purposes of arrest or search.
Salazar v. Achacoso
Salazars properties in her residence and dance studio were seized by
virtue of a search warrant issued by the POEA.
1.
2.
Facts:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Petitioner (Hortencia Horty Salazar) was charged by a Rosalie

Tesoro wth the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration.
According to Tesoro, after she surrendered her PECC Card to
petitioner, she promised her of booking in Japan. However, after
9 months, Tesoro was still in the Philippines and was never able to
travel to Japan, and that her PECC card was not released by
Salazar.
Public respondent Atty. Ferdinand Marquez sent a telegram to
petitioner. Respondent requested the petitioner before him being a
part of POEA Anti-Illegal Recruitment Unit. On the same day,
having ascertained that the petitioner had no license to operate a
recruitment agency, administrator Tomas Achacoso issued a
closure and seizure order, numbered 1205.
The Director of POEA Licensing and Regulation (Atty. Estelita
Espiritu) issued an order designation Atty. Marquez, Atty. Abara and
Atty. Vistro as members of the team tasked to implement the
Closure and Seizure Order rendered by Achacoso. After proceeding
to petitioners residence, the team, assisted by Mandaluyong
policemen and mediamen, went to Hannalie Dance Studio, which
petitioner operated.
Before entering Hannalie Dance Studio, the team served said order
on a certain Mrs. Flora Salazar who voluntarily allowed them entry
into the premises. When required to show credentials, Salazar was
unable to produce any. The team confiscated assorted costumes
when they chanced upon 12 talent performers practicing a dance
number. The confiscation was duly receipted for by Mrs. Asuncion
Maguelan and witnessed by Salazar.
Petitioner, through a letter to POEA, requested that the personal
properties seized at her residence be returned.
Issue: Whether the POEA validly issue warrants of search and seizure (or
arrest) under Article 38 of the Labor Code.
Ruling:
Under the present Constitution, it is only a judge who may issue

warrants of search and arrest. It was declared that mayors may
not exercise this power, neither by a mere prosecuting body. The
exception is in cases of deportation of illegal and undesirable
aliens, whom the President or the Commissioner of Immigration
may order arrested, following a final order of deportation, for
purpose of deportation.
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 any person engaged in illegal recruitment. More so, PD 1920
gave the Minister of Labor arrest and closure power. That, the
Minister of Labor and Employment has the power to cause the
arrest and detention of such non-licensee or nonholder of authority
if after proper investigation it is determined that his activities
constitute a danger to national security and public order or will
lead to further exploitation of job-seekers. Meanwhile, PD 2018
bestowed upon the Minister of Labor search and seizure powers.
However, the decrees in question stood as dying vestiges of
authoritarian rule in its twilight moments. Thuss, the Secretary of
Labor, not being a judge, may no longer issue search or arrest
warrants. Article 38(c) of the Labor Code is declared
unconstitutional and of no force and efect.
Stonehill v. Diokno
42 search warrants were issued by judges, upon application by officers of
government. 29 out of the 42 search warrants were intended for the
corporations and offices which the petitioners were affiliated with; the rest
were intended for their residences. Petitioners were charged for violating
the Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Law, Internal Revenue and RPC.
In the performance of the search warrants, several items were seized
including books of accounts, financial records and documents showing all
business transactions.
Facts:
1.
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,
2.
3.
balance sheets and profit and loss statements and Bobbins

(cigarette wrappers). Said items/articles are the subject of the
ofense, stolen or embezzled and proceeds/fruits of the ofense or
used or intended to be used as the means of committing the
ofense, which is violation of Central Bank Laws, Tarif 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 efects seized are admissible in evidence
against petitioners, regardless of the alleged illegality of the
aforementioned searches and seizures.
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 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 efects belong and may not be invoked by the corporate
officers in proceedings against them in their individual capacity.
3. 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
7.
provision, and that the warrant shall particularly describe the

things to be seized) has been complied with in the contested
warrants. No specific ofense has been alleged in said applications
for the said applications stated that the persons concerned have
violated Central Bank Laws, Tarif 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 ofense.
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 counterintelligence 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.
Petitioner Martin Alagao (head of the counter-intelligence unit of

the MPD), having received a reliable information that a certain
2.
3.
4.
5.
shipment of personal efects 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 other elements of the counterintelligence unit. The information which reached Alagao specified
that said misdeclared and undervalued items were loaded on two
trucks.
The trucks left the gate where Alagaos group conducted
surveillance. However, such trucks were later intercepted. The
load of the two trucks consisted of 9 bales of goods.
The cargo was owned by Remedios Mago while the truck was
owned by Valentin Lanopa. In their petition in the CFI of Manila,
they claimed that the MPD seized the goods without search
warrant issued by a competent court, and that Papa denied the
request of Magos counsel that the bales be not opened and the
goods not examined.
The respondent judge issued an order restraining petitioners from
opening the nine bales in question. However, some bales were
already opened by examiners of the BOC when the restraining
order was received.
Respondent contended that, since the inventory of the goods
seized did not show any article of prohibited importation, such
articles should be released upon her posting of the bond to be
determined by court. Petitioners contended however that most of
the goods, as shown in the inventory, were not declared and were
thus subject to forfeiture. Respondent judge issued an order
releasing the good upon the filing of the bond in the amount of Php
40,000.00 to which the respondent complied with.
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.
Nolasco v. Cruz-Pao
Aguilar-Roque is accused of rebellion. On August 6, 1984, she was
arrested together with Nolasco. 30 minutes after her arrest, the vicinity
where she was arrested was likewise searched. During said search, 431
items were seized and the person in-charge of the premises, Tolentino,
was arrested. Petitioners assert that the search warrant partake of a
general warrant; thus, said items cannot be admitted as evidence.
Facts:
1.
2.
Issue: Is there a need to procure a warrant before search be made?

Ruling:
1.
The Bureau of Customs acquires exclusive jurisdiction over

imported goods, for the purposes of enforcement of the customs
laws, from the moment the goods are actually in possession or
control, even if no warrant of seizure or detention had previously
been issued by the Collector of Customs in connection with seizure
and forfeiture 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
tarif and customs laws, to the exclusion of the regular courts.
2. Petitioner Alagao and his companion policemen had authority to
efect the seizure without any search warrant issued by a
competent court. The Tarif 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
3.
4.
5.
One of the petitioners (Aguilar-Roque) was accused of the Rebellion

of Military Commission No. 25. She was arrested on August 6,
1984, 11:30 AM by a Constabulary Security Group (CSG). Arrested
with Roque was Nolasco. 30 minutes later, elements of the CSG
searched the premises at 239-B Mayon St., Quezon City. During
the said search, one of the petitioners Tolentino, who was the
person in-charge of the premises, was arrested. 428 documents
and written materials were seized, together with a portable
typewriter and 2 wooden boxes.
Three hours prior to the search, Lt. Col. Virgilio G. Saldajeno of the
CSG applied for a search warrant from Judge Pao to be served on
239-B Mayon St., Quezon City. Said place was determined to be
the leased residence of Aguilar-Roque after almost a month of
round the clock surveillance. Said warrant was issued in
proceedings entiled PP v. Mila Aguilar-Roque, Accused, Search
Warrant No. 80-84 for rebellion. This is known to be the Search
Warrant Case.
Nolasco, Aguilar-Roque and Tolentino wre charged for
subversion/rebellion and/or conspiracy to commit
rebellion/subversion.
Petitioners, on December 12, prayed in a Motion to Suppress filed
with MTC Judge Santos that the items (total of 431) be returned to
them. Such motion was denied by Judge Santos on the ground that
the validity of the Search Warrant had to be litigated in the Search
Warrant Case.
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.

Ruling:
1.
2.
3.
The items enumerated in the search warrant were vaguely

described and not particularized. There is absent a definite
guideline to the 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.
Notwithstanding the irregular issuance of the search warrant and
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 ofense 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 place or premises where the arrest was
made can also be searched without a search warrant. In the latter
case, the extent and reasonableness of the search must be
decided on its own facts and circumstances, and it has been stated
that, in the application of general rules, there is some confusion in
the decisions as to what constitutes the extent of the place or
premises which may be searched. What must be considered is the
balancing of the individuals right to privacy and the publics
interest in the prevention of crime and the apprehension of
criminals.
Roque charged with rebellion which is a crime against public
order, a warrant for her arrest had not been served for a
considerable period of time, arrested within the general vicinity of
her dwelling, and search of her dwelling was made within a half
hour of her arrest did not need a search warrant for the possible
efective results in the interest of public order.
Posadas v. CA
Petitioner was walking within the premises of Rizal Memorial Colleges
when he 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 approached by the officers who duly identified themselves
as members of the 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 calibre gun, and a smoke grenade.
Facts:
1.
Petitioner was caught during the surveillance of members of the

Integrated National Police (Ursicio Ungab and Umbra Umpar) on
2.
3.
4.
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.
Ruling:
1.
2.
Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure

provides that, among others, an arrest is lawful even without a
warrant should a person has committed, is actually committing, or
is attempting to commit an ofense in the presence of a peace
officer or a private person. In the case at bar, the officers did not
know what the petitioner had committed or was actually
committing; thus, it does not justify an arrest without a warrant.
However, the search thereat in the case at bar is more reasonable
than warrantless search and seizure conducted at military or police
checkpoints. The search done by the officers was efected on the
basis of a probable cause. The probable cause is that when the
petitioner acted suspiciously and attempted to flee with the buri
bag. There was a probable cause that he was concealing
something illegal in the bag and it was the right and duty of the
police officers to inspect the same.
It is too much to require police officers to search bags in the
possession 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 much too late.
People v. de Lara
Surveillance was conducted on December 15 and 17, 1986 and January 8,
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 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 poseur-buyer, 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.
2.
Facts:
1.
2.
3.
4.
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 buy-bust operation against de Lara and his group. A
certain Pfc. Martin Orolfo, Jr. acted as the poseur-buyer.
Orolfo and the confidential informant proceeded to the house of de
Lara where he was seen standing outside. The informant
introduced Orolfo as an interested buyer of marijuana, to which de
Lara asked how much he (Orolfo) would buy. Responding to the
question, Orolfo answered two foils handing at the same time the
marked Php 20 bill. de Lara placed the money in the right pocket
in his pants,, went inside and minutes later came back with the two
foils.
When de Lara handed the two foils, he sensed the presence of the
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 Orolfo in pursuit. When he was subdued, de Lara admitted
that he kept prohibited drugs in his house and even showed the
arresting officers a blue plastic bag with white lining containing
prohibited drugs. Orolfo made a receipt of the articles seized.
de Lara was convicted of violation of Sec. 4, Article II of RA 6425
(Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972). In his appeal, he questioned the
legality of his arrest and seizure of prohibited drugs found in his
house.
3.
People v. de Gracia
There was a coup d etat staged from November 30 to December 9, 1989.
A surveillance was conducted on the night of November 30 till the early
morning of December 1 on Eurocar Sales Office located in EDSA. The
surveillance team was attacked by five men coming from the Eurocar
building. On December 5, the building was raided and de Gracia, together
with the janitors of the building, was caught. Found in his possession were
high-powered firearms, ammunitions and explosives.
Facts:
1.
2.
Ruling:
Section 5, Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedures
enumerates situations when an arrest may be lawful even without
a warrant. Two of said situations applicable to the case are: (a)
that when the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing or is attempting to commit an ofense in the presence
of a peace officer/private person, and (b) that when an ofense has
in fact just been committed and the peace officer/private person
has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be
arrested has committed it. In the case at bar, de Lara was caught
red-handed in delivering two tin foils of marijuana to Orolfo.
Having caught the appellant in flagrante as a result of the buy-bust
operation, the policemen were not only authorized but were also
under obligation to apprehend the drug pusher even without a
warrant of arrest. Furthermore, surveillance on the illegal activities
of de Lara was 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
ofense 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.
1.
3.
From November 30 to December 9, 1989, there was a coup d etat

staged by elements of the Reform the Armed Forces Movement
Soldiers of the Filipino People (RAM-SFP). Various government
establishments and military camps in Metro Manila were
bombarded by the RAM-SFP with their tora-tora planes.
On the night of November 30, 1989 until the early morning of the
next day, Major Efren Soria of the Intellience Division conducted a
surveillance of the Eurocar Sales Offices at EDSA, together with his
team. They were informed that said establishment were being
occupied by elements of the RAM-SFP as a communication
command post. One member of Sorias team (S/Sgt. Henry
Aquino) conducted a surveillance on foot when the crowd gathered
near the Eurocar Office watching the on-going bombardment near
Camp Aguinaldo and from said crowd, a group of five men walked
towards the car of the surveillance team. When the vehicle sped
away, the group of five men fired at the team which resulted in the
wounding of a team member (Sgt. Sagario).
On December 5, 1989, a searching team led by F/Lt. Virgilio Babao,
together with the elements of the 16th Infantry Battalion led by Col.
Delos Santos, raided the Eurocar Sales Office and found
ammunitions and explosives. A member of the team, Sgt. Obenia,
who was the first one to enter the building, saw de Gracia holding a
C-4 and suspiciously peeping through a door. de Gracia was
arrested, together with the janitors of the building. They were
4.
made to sign an inventory, written in Tagalog, of the explosives

and ammunition confiscated by the 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.
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
2.
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
ofense. The arrest, therefore, need not follow the usual procedure
in the prosecution of ofenses 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 Sobra

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Cases Sobra

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

1 Burgos v.

The Congressman of the municipality of Masbate, Masbate (Moises

Case Digests: Searches and Seizures Mark Justin Mooc

investigation conducted in Masbate. These were denied by the

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

2 Burgos v. Chief of Staf

Preliminary investigation should be distinguished as to whether it is

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

Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687

fiscals report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of

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

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

To be valid, a search warrant must be supported by probable cause

3 Burgos v. Chief of Staf

examining the complainant and the witnesses he may produce.

People v. Bolasa y Nakoboan

PO3 Dante Salonga and PO3 Albert Carizon were informed by an

Case Digests: Searches and Seizures Mark Justin Mooc

bags and some paraphernalia. Examination of the tea bags by NBI

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

4 Burgos v. Chief of Staf

emergency circumstances, for evidence at hand is deprived of any

2000. Also, he contended that the arresting officers failure to

Case Digests: Searches and Seizures Mark Justin Mooc

Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides that a peace

5 Burgos v. Chief of Staf

Eight members of CRIG, led by Lt. Noel Manabat, stationed at

Case Digests: Searches and Seizures Mark Justin Mooc

The right against unreasonable searches and seizures as

6 Burgos v. Chief of Staf

An arrest may be efected by a peace officer or even a private

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

On February 24, 1970, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Case Digests: Searches and Seizures Mark Justin Mooc

Logronio to take the oath. Prior to Logronios swearing in, the

Respondent Judge failed to personally examine the complainant

7 Burgos v. Chief of Staf

Petitioner (Nemesio Prudente) was implicated for having violated

Case Digests: Searches and Seizures Mark Justin Mooc

For a valid search warrant to issue, there must be probable cause

8 Burgos v. Chief of Staf

Pita v. Court of Appeals

A show of force is sometimes necessary as long as the rights of the

Pursuing an Anti-Smut Campaign initiated by the Mayor of Manila

9 Burgos v. Chief of Staf

Activated through LOI 02/87 of the Philippine General

Case Digests: Searches and Seizures Mark Justin Mooc

On July 9, 1988, a supply officer of the Municipality of Valenzuela,

10 Burgos v. Chief of Staf

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

Case Digests: Searches and Seizures Mark Justin Mooc

The questioned firearm and alleged subversive documents were

On May 11, 1989, the Commanding Officer (Capt. Alen Vasco) of

11 Burgos v. Chief of Staf

There are exceptions where a search may be made pursuant to a

People v. Lo Ho Wing (alias Peter Lo), Lim Cheng Huat (alias

Case Digests: Searches and Seizures Mark Justin Mooc

The Special Operations Group received a tip from one of its

12 Burgos v. Chief of Staf

The search and seizure supported by a valid warrant is not an

Yee Sue Kuy v. Almeda

Respondent (Mariano Almeda), chief agent of the Anti-Usury Board,

On the first contention, that is, issuance of search warrant 3 days

13 Burgos v. Chief of Staf