1
II.
The Right Against
Unreasonable Searches & Seizures:
A BASIC GUIDE
Sections 2 and 3 (2) of Article III of the Constitution provide:
"SECTION 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and
effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except
upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination under
oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
SEC 3. x x x
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of x x x the preceding section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
GUIDE OUTLINE
1. How to determine if the search or seizure violates the Constitutional prohibition
2. How to determine if the search or seizure is a government action
3. How to determine if the search or seizure is unreasonable
4. How to determine the legal consequences of the unlawful search or seizure
I.
DOES THE SEARCH OR SEIZURE VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION?
Protection guaranteed: Immunity of persons, not places
The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is the immunity of
one's person, which includes his residence, his papers, and other possessions. The
guarantee refers to "the right of personal security" of the individual. What is sought to be
protected against the State's unlawful intrusion are persons, not places. To conclude
otherwise would lead to the absurd logic that for a person to be immune against
unreasonable searches and seizures, he must be in his home or office, within a fenced
yard or a private place. The Bill of Rights belongs as much to the person in the street as
to the individual in the sanctuary of his bedroom. 1
Basic Requirements for the constitutional prohibition to apply
The search or seizure violates the prohibition under Section 2, Article III of the 1987
Constitution, if it is:
1. a government or state action; and
2. unreasonable
Requirement No.1: Government/State action
Rule: The search or seizure must be an action by the government or state, otherwise the
Constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures and the
exclusionary rule will not apply.2
The protection against unreasonable searches and seizures proscribes only
governmental action. It is wholly inapplicable to a search or seizure, even an
unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the
Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official." 3
Reason: The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures applies
as a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the
enforcement of the law. It could only be invoked against the State.4 This is because Bill
of Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the state, and not the
relation between private individuals.5
Requirement No. 2: Unreasonable Search or Seizure
What the constitution prohibits are unreasonable searches and seizures. The
constitutional guarantee is not a blanket prohibition against all searches and seizures as
it operates only against unreasonable searches and seizures. Searches and seizures
are as a rule unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued search warrant or
warrant of arrest. 6 Reasonableness is the touchstone of the validity of a government
search or intrusion. 7
Reasonable searches and seizures are allowed. The Constitutional proscription
against unreasonable searches and seizures does not, of course, forestall reasonable
searches and seizure. What constitutes a reasonable or even an unreasonable search
in any particular case is purely a judicial question, determinable from a consideration of
the circumstances involved. 8
1 11
People v. Valdez, 25 September 2000
2
People v. Bangcarawan, 384 SCRA 525, 11 July 2002; People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57, 18 January 1991
3
United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984). Note that in the United States, the State Action Doctrine was originally
applied to First Amendment rights (freedom of speeh, religion, association, assembly) and Fourteenth Amendment rights (due
process and equal protection).
4 15
People v. Bangcarawan, 384 SCRA 525, 11 July 2002; People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57, 18 January 1991; see also People v.
Hipol, 407 SCRA 179, 22 July 2003)
5
See People v. Marti 18, 193 SCRA 57 January 1991; People v. Mendoza, 301 SCRA 66, 18 January 1999; Burdeau v.
McDowell (256 US 465 (1921), State v. Bryan (457 P.2d 661 [1968]; Walker v. State (429 S.W.2d 121), Bernas v. US (373
F.2d 517)
6 18
People v. Libnao, 395 SCRA 407, 20 January 2003
7 19
Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, 570 SCRA 411, 03 November 2008
8 20
People v. Chua Ho San, 17 June 1999
9 21
People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57, 18 January 1991
10
384 SCRA 525, 11 July 2002
IS THE SEARCH OR SEIZURE A GOVERNMENT ACTION?
Rule: A search by a private individual, without the intervention of the police, is not
covered by the constitutional prohibition
If the search is made at the behest or initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment
for its own and private purposes, and without the intervention of police authorities, the
right against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked.9
Thus, in People v. Bangcarawan, 10the baggage of the accused was searched by the
vessel security personnel. It was only after they found shabu inside the suitcase that they
called the Philippine Coast Guard for assistance. The Supreme Court ruled that the
search and seizure of the suitcase and the contraband items were carried out without
government intervention, and hence, the search did not come under the Constitutional
prohibition, and the seized shabu was deemed admissible as evidence.
III.
IS THE SEARCH OR SEIZURE UNREASONABLE?
Unreasonable Searches and Seizures
1. Unreasonable: Searches and seizures without a warrant
A search and seizure must be carried through or with a judicial warrant; otherwise, such
search and seizure becomes unreasonable. 11 Searches, seizures and arrests are
normally unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued search warrant or warrant
of arrest. 12
No arrest, search and seizure can be made without a valid warrant issued by a competent
judicial authority. The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. 13
The Constitution bars State intrusions to a person's body, personal effects or residence
except if conducted by virtue of a valid search warrant issued in compliance with the
procedure outlined in the Constitution and reiterated in the Rules of Court; otherwise
such search and seizure become unreasonable within the meaning of the
aforementioned constitutional provision. 14
2. Unreasonable: Searches and seizures under an invalid warrant
If the search warrant is null and void, the searches and seizures made therein are
illegal.15
The search warrant must strictly comply with the requirements of the Constitution and
the statutory provisions. Failure to comply with any requirement mandated by law for the
issuance of a search warrant renders such search warrant invalid, the subsequent search
unlawful, and evidence obtained therefrom inadmissible. 16
If the search warrant is null and void, the searches and seizures made therein are
illegal.17
Requisites for a valid search warrant
(1) It must be issued upon probable cause;
(2) The probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the
applicant or any other person;
(3) In the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or
affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and
(4) The warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons
or things to be seized.18
A search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection with one
specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath
or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere
in the Philippines. 19
Probable cause for a search warrant: Defined The existence of such facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that
an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense
are in the place to be searched. 20
Probable cause: How determined To be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and his witnesses he may
produce. 21
Probable cause: Personal knowledge required Absent the element of personal
knowledge by the applicant or his witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of a
People v. Nuevas, 516 SCRA 463, 22 February 2007; People v. Compacion, 361 SCRA 540, 20 July 2001; People v.
Valdez, 345 SCRA 357, 25 September 2000; People v. Tudtud, 482 SCRA 142, 26 September 2003; Pita v. Court of Appeals,
178 SCRA 362,05 October 1989; People v. Chua Ho San, 308 scra 432, 17 June 1999; People v. Barros, 231 SCRA 557, 565
12
David v. Macapagal-Arroyo 489 SCRA 162, 03 May 2006
13
People v. Valdez, 03 March 1999
14
People v. Chua Ho San, 17 June 1999; People v. Barros 231 SCRA 557, 565
See Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383, 19 June 1967; Bache and Co., (Phil.) Inc. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823, 27 February 1971
16
See People v. Mamaril 22, 420 SCRA 662, January 2004; PICOP v. Asuncion, 307 SCRA 253, 19 May 1999; See also
Asian Surety v. Herrera, 54 SCRA 312, 20 December 1973; Alvarez v. CFI Tayabas, 64 Phil 33, 29 January 1937; Burgos v.
Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800, December 1984
17
See Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383, 19 June 1967; Bache and Co., (Phil.) Inc. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823, 27 February 1971
Section 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution; Hon Ne Chan v. Honda Motor, 541 SCRA 249, 19 December 2007
Section 4, Rule 126, Rules of Court
Sony Music v. Espanol, et al., 453 SCRA 360, 14 March 2005; Nala v. Barroso, 408 SCRA 529, 07 August 2003; Santos v.
Pryce Gases, 538 SCRA 474, 23 November 2007)
Section 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution
 2

search warrant may be justified, the warrant is deemed not based on probable cause and A gun on a table or in a drawer in front of one who is arrested can be as dangerous to
is a nullity, its issuance being, in legal contemplation, arbitrary.22 the arresting officer as one concealed in the clothing of the person arrested. 34

Search warrant does not justify search & seizure of any evidence A search As to Time The search must be contemporaneous with the lawful arrest. The search
warrant is not a sweeping authority for a fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any must be conducted at about the time of the arrest or immediately thereafter and only at
and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to a crime. Nothing should be left to the the place where the suspect was arrested, or the premises or surroundings under his
discretion of the officer executing the warrant. 23 immediate control. 35

Test of particularity of description A search warrant may be said to particularly (2) Search of a moving motor vehicle
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 Limited car inspection: Valid even without probable causeRoutine inspections of
fact not of law by which the warrant officer may be guided in making the search motor vehicles are normally permissible in the following instances:
and seizure; or when the things described are limited to those which bear direct relation (1) where the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle which
to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. 24 is parked on the public fair ground;
(2) simply looks into a vehicle;
GENERAL RULE: A search or seizure by the government without a judicial (3) flashes a light therein without opening the car's doors;
warrant is unreasonable and thus, illegal. (4) where the occupants are not subjected to a physical or body search;
(5) where the inspection of the vehicles is limited to a visual search or visual
EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE: Warrantless searches that are inspection; and
reasonable and, thus, valid (6) where the routine check is conducted in a fixed area.36

The Constitutional proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures does not Visual search: Probable cause not required When there is no probable cause,
forestall reasonable searches and seizure. What constitutes a reasonable or even an peace officers are limited to routine checks where the examination of the vehicle is limited
unreasonable search in any particular case is purely a judicial question, determinable to visual inspection. 37
from a consideration of the circumstances involved. 25
Extensive search: Probable cause required When a vehicle is stopped and
In the following instances, the search is reasonable even without a warrant: subjected to an extensive search, such would be constitutionally permissible only if the
officers made it upon probable cause, i.e., upon a belief, reasonably arising out of
1. search incident to a lawful arrest; circumstances known to the seizing officer, that an automobile or other vehicle contains
2. search of a moving motor vehicle; as item, article or object which by law is subject to seizure and destruction, 38 or
3. search in violation of customs laws; instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be searched. 39
4. seizure of evidence in plain view;
5. search when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable Extensive search must be done only when it is not practicable to secure a
searches and seizures (consented search); warrantWarrantless search of a moving vehicle is allowed only when it is not
6. stop and frisk (Terry search); and practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the area
7. search arising from exigent and emergency circumstances.26 or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. 40

Other warrantless searches that are reasonable and valid
27
In People v. Agulay , the Supreme Court enumerated other instances of valid
warrantless searches, specifically:
- searches of vessels and aircraft for violation of immigration, customs and
drug laws;
- searches of automobiles at borders or constructive borders; and
- searches of buildings and premises to enforce fire, sanitary, and building
regulations.
In People v. Johnston, the Supreme Court also held valid a warrantless search pursuant
to routine airport security procedure, which is authorized under Section 9 of Republic
Act No. 6235. 28
Under Section 6 of Commonwealth Act 613 or the Philippine Immigration Act as amended,
immigration inspectors are empowered to go aboard and search for aliens on any vessel
or other conveyance in which they believe aliens are being brought into the Philippines.
Search of moving vehicle principle applies to fishing vessels and boatsSearch
and seizure without search warrant of vessels and aircrafts for violations of customs laws
have been the traditional exception to the constitutional requirement of a search warrant.
It is rooted on the recognition that a vessel and an aircraft, like motor vehicles, can be
quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the search warrant must be
sought and secured. The same exception ought to apply to seizures of fishing vessels
and boats breaching fishery laws. 41
(3) Search in violation of customs laws
Enforcers of customs and tariff laws are authorized to effect searches, seizures, and
arrests, and to make seizure, among others, of any cargo, articles or other movable
property when the same may be subject to forfeiture or liable for any fine imposed under
customs and tariff laws. They could lawfully open and examine any box, trunk, envelope
or other container wherever found when he had reasonable cause to suspect the
presence therein of dutiable articles introduced into the Philippines contrary to law; and
likewise to stop, search and examine any vehicle, beast or person reasonably
suspected of holding or conveying such articles.

VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCHES & SEIZURES: A CLOSER LOOK
(1) Search incident to a lawful arrest
Purpose of search A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous
weapons or anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission
of an offense without a search warrant. 29
There must first be a valid arrest before a search The law requires that there first
be a valid arrest before a search can be madethe process cannot be reversed. 30
Based on Section 2203 of the Tariff and Customs Code, except in the case of the search
of a dwelling house, persons exercising police authority under the customs law may effect
search and seizure without a search warrant in the enforcement of customs laws. 42
(emphases supplied)
(4) Seizure of evidence in plain view (plain view doctrine)
Under the plain view doctrine, objects failing in plain view of an officer who has a right to
be in that position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search warrant
and may be introduced in evidence. 43

Limits to the scope of search incidental to a lawful arrest Elements of a valid seizure of evidence in plain view
a. A prior valid intrusion in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of
As to Area: Immediate Control TestThe seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons their official duties;
must be either on the person of the one arrested or within the area of his immediate b. The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right
control. The phrase within the area of his immediate control means the area from within to be where they are;
which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. 31 c. The evidence must be immediately apparent;
- Should be limited to the area within which the person to be arrested can d. Plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search. 44
reach for a weapon or for evidence that he or she can destroy. 32
Evidence in plain view may be seized, although not described in the search warrant
45
As to Subject As to subject, the search must only be with respect to the person of the
suspect, and things that may be seized from him are limited to "dangerous weapons" or
"anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense." 33 Meaning of immediately apparent At the time of the discovery of the object or facts
or at the moment of seizure, the officer has probable cause to connect the object to
criminal activity. 46

22 33
(Sony Music v. Espanol, et al., 453 SCRA 360, 14 March 2005) People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592, 21 March 2000
34
Valeroso v. Court of Appeals, 3 September 2009, G.R. No. 16481; People v. Estella, 395 SCRA 553, 21 January 2003
23 35
(Unilab. Isip, 461 SCRA 575, 28 June 2005; People v. Francisco, 387 SCRA 569, 22 August 2002) People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592, 21 March 2000
24 36
Bache and Co., (Phil.) Inc. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823, 27 February 1971; Columbia pictures versus court of Appeals, 262 SCRA Caballes v. Court of Appeals, 15 January 2002
37
219, 20 September 1996; Uy v. BIR, 345 SCRA 36, 20 October 2000) People v. Libnao, 325 SCRA 407, 20 January 2003
25 38
People v. Chua Ho San, 308 SCRA 432, 17 June 1999 People v. Libnao, 325 SCRA 407, 20 January 2003
26 39
People v. Tudtud, 412 SCRA 427, 26 September 2006; Epie v. Ulat-Marredo, 518 SCRA 641, 22 March 2007; People v. People v. Lapitaje, 392 SCRA 674, 19 February 2003
40
Sarap 399 SCRA 503, March 26, 2003; People v. Nuevas, 516 SCRA 463, 22 February 2007; People v. Valdez, 304 SCRA People v. Lapitaje, 392 SCRA 674, 19 February 2003
41
140, 03 March 1999 Hizon v. CA, 265 SCRA 517, 13 December 1996
27 42
26 September 2008 Papa v. Mago, 22 SCRA 257, 28 February 1968; see also Salvador v, People, 463 SCRA 489, 15 July 2005
28
People v. Johnston 348 SCRA 526; People v. Macalaba 20 January 2003
29 43
Section 12, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure; People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592, 21 March Abelita v. Doria, 14 August 2009; People v. Doria, 301 SCRA 668,22 January 1999; People v. Lagman, 573 SCRA 225, 08
2000 December 2008
30 44
People v. Binad Sy Chua, 396 SCRA 657, 04 February 2003; People v. Molina, 352 SCRA 174, 19 February 2001 People v. Nuevas, 576 SCRA 463; 22 February 2007; People v. Compacion, 361 SCRA 540, 20 July 2001
31 45
Valeroso v. Court of Appeals, 3 September 2009, G.R. No. 16481; People v. Cubcubin, 360 SCRA 690, 10 July 2001 Unilab v. Isip, 461 SCRA 575, 28 June 2005
32 46
People v. Estella, 395 SCRA 553, 21 January 2003 Unilab v. Isip, 461 SCRA 575, 28 June 2005
 3

Meaning of inadvertence The officer must not have known in advance of the
location of the evidence and intend to seize it. Discovery is not anticipated. 47
(5) Search when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable
searches and seizures (consented search)
The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right which may be
waived expressly or impliedly. 48
Consent must be unequivocal, specific and intelligently given The consent to the
search must be voluntary, unequivocal, specific, and intelligently given, uncontaminated
by any duress or coercion. The consent to a search must be shown by clear and
convincing evidence. 49
Requisites for a valid waiver In case of consented searches or waiver of the
constitutional guarantee against obtrusive searches, it must first appear that
(1) the right exists;
(2) the person involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the
existence of such right; and
(3) the said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right. 50
Peaceful submission is not consent Peaceful submission to a search or seizure is
not a consent or an invitation thereto, but is merely a demonstration of regard for the
supremacy of the law. 51 The accused is not to be presumed to have waived the unlawful
search simply because he failed to object. 52
53
The presumption is against waiver of constitutional right.
(6) Stop and frisk (Terry search)
59
1. is inadmissible to prove the guilt of the accused.
2. cannot be used to legally obtain other evidence.
- Evidence obtained from/as a result of evidence obtained in an illegal
search would also be inadmissible for being fruit of the poisonous tree.
- Under, the exclusionary rule known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree,"
once the primary source (the "tree") is shown to have been unlawfully
obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the "fruit") derived from
it is also inadmissible. The rule is based on the principle that evidence
illegally obtained by the State should not be used to gain other evidence
because the originally illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence
subsequently obtained.60
3. cannot be used to justify a subsequent warrantless arrest. 61
2. Even if the search was unlawful, and the evidence obtained was excluded, the
court may still convict the accused on the basis of other pieces of admissible
evidence. 62
Thus, in People v. Che Chun Ting, 63 the Supreme Court declared that the search in the
condominium unit of the accused was illegal (the area was not within the immediate
control of the accused at the time of the arrest), and the shabu seized therein was
inadmissible as evidence. However, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the
accused on the basis of evidence consisting of, among others, shabu which was found
in bag of the accused at the time the police arrested him in flagrante delicto in a buy-bust
operation. 64
3. If the items seized in an illegal search are contraband or prohibited by law, the
same cannot be returned to the owner. 65
However, objects and properties the possession of which is prohibited by law cannot be
returned to their owners notwithstanding the illegality of their seizure. 66

Scope Limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons. 54 4. If the items seized in an illegal search are not contraband, the same should be
returned to the owner. 67
When stop and frisk is valid Where a police officer observes unusual conduct which
leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be Seized items that are products of an illegal search, and are not contraband per se, nor
afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and dangerous, where objects in connection with the offense, should be returned to the person from whom the
in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and same were taken. 68
makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter
serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others safety, he is entitled for the
protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the
outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used
to assault him. 55

Mere suspicion is not enough for a stop-and-frisk; there must be genuine

reason to believe that the person has a concealed weapon Mere suspicion or a
hunch will not validate a stop-and-frisk. A genuine reason must exist, in light of the
police officers experience and surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the
person detained has weapons concealed about him. 56

(7) Search arising from exigent and emergency circumstances

In People v. De Gracia (233 SCRA 716, [1994]), there were intelligence reports that the
building was being used as headquarters by the RAM during a coup detat. A
surveillance team was fired at by a group of armed men coming out of the building and
the occupants of said building refused to open the door despite repeated
requests. There were large quantities of explosives and ammunitions inside the
building. Nearby courts were closed and general chaos and disorder prevailed. The
existing circumstances sufficiently showed that a crime was being committed. In short,
there was probable cause to effect a warrantless search of the building. 57

Probable cause: The basic requirement in all warrantless searches

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

IV.

WHAT ARE THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF

AN UNLAWFUL SEARCH OR SEIZURE?

1. The exclusionary rule applies: Evidence obtained is inadmissible for any

purpose in any proceeding.

If a search or seizure is unreasonable, any evidence obtained therefrom is inadmissible

for any purpose in any proceeding. 58

Thus, evidence obtained during an illegal search or seizure . . .

47 59
Unilab v. Isip, 461 SCRA 575, 28 June 2005 See People v. Sarap, 399 SCRA 503, 26 March 2003; People v. Francisco, 387 SCRA 592, 22 August 2002; People v.
48
People v. Cubcubin, 360 SCRA 690, 10 July 2001 Valdez, 341 SCRA 253, 25 September 2000; People v. Asis, 391 SCRA 108, 15 October 2002
49 60
People v. Nuevas 22 February 2007, 576 SCRA 463 People v. Alicando 321 Phil 656, 12 December 1995; People v. Domantay 307 SCRA 1, 09 May 1999; People v. Conde,
50
People v. Nuevas, 576 SCRA 463, 22 February 2007 356 SCRA 415, 10 April 2001
51 61
People v. Nuevas, 576 SCRA 463, 22 February 2007; People v. Comnpacion, 361 SCRA 540, 20 July 2009 See People v. Sarap, 399 SCRA 503, 26 March 2003
52 62
People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1; People v. Compacion, 361 SCRA 540, 20 July 2001 See People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592, 21 March 2000 and People v. Rondero, 320 SCRA 383, 09 December 1999
53 63
People v. Burgos 144 SCRA 1, 1986; People v. Compacion, 361 SCRA 540, 20 July 2001; People v. Aruta 288 SCRA 626 21 March 2000
54 64
People v. Binad Sy Chua, 396 SCRA 657, 04 February 2003; Malacat v. People, 283 SCRA 159, 12 December 1997 See also People v. Rondero 09 December 1999)
55 65
People v. Binad Sy Chua, 396 SCRA 657, 04 February 2003; Malacat v. People, 283 SCRA 159, 12 December 1997 Castro v. Pabalan, 70 SCRA 477, 30 April 1976; People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592, 21 March 2000
56 66
People v. Binad Sy Chua, 396 SCRA 657, 04 February 2003; Malacat v. People, 283 SCRA 159, 12 December 1997 People v. Che Chun Ting 21 March 2000
57 67
also cited in People v. Aruta, 288 SCRA 626, 03 April 1998 See Bache and Co., (Phil.) Inc. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823, 27 February 1971; Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800, 26
58
Sections 2, and 3 [2], Art. III, 1987 Constitution; People v. Nuevas, 576 SCRA 463, 22 February 2007; See also People v. December 1984; Nala v. Barroso, 408 SCRA 529, 07 August 2003
68
Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592, 21 March 2000; People v. Sarap, 399 SCRA 503, 26 March 2003; People v. Bangcarawan, See Nala v. Barroso 07 August 2003
384 SCRA 525, 11 July 2002