SEARCH AND SEIZURE

 Search warrant elements:

o Order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines,
o Signed by a judge
o Directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property
described therein and
o Bring it before the court.
 General warrant: vaguely describes and does not particularize the personal properties to be
seized; gives the officers of the law discretion regarding what articles they should seize
(fishing expedition)
o Not valid
o Particularity requirement is satisfied as long as the description of things will not leave
the determination of what items are to be seized to the discretion of the officers
 Must enable officers to readily identify the properties, and distinguish the items to
be seized from others
 Rationale for Rule 126: to limit/prevent police abuses as a procedural safeguard; safeguards
right to privacy and security of persons/things/effects
 Where to file: any inferior court (RTC or MTC), BUT must be applied in connection with the
territorial jurisdiction for which offense a SW is sought.
o Exception: any court within the judicial region (ex. File in RTC Pasig even if crime is in
QC, but still in NCR region)—only for compelling reasons
 When to apply:
o Before complaint (to support the filing of a complaint) = most common
o If there is already an information filed (but must apply to the court where info was filed)
o Earliest time: before filing of complaint
o Latest time: before judgment
 What to apply for:
o Personal properties or movables as defined by Sec. 3
 Validity: 10 days from its date (Aug 24 – Sept 3 = exclude first day, include last day)
 Limitations:
o If no real expectation of privacy, it can be argued that SW need not be issued
o If SW asked for simultaneously, for the same thing and same premises but for 1
offense, still a general warrant
o What if consecutive or successive? Allowed, provided that there is probable cause and
the items have not yet been seized.
o No need to specify the quantity of the items to be seized
 Need not describe the items to be seized in precise and minute detail
 E.g. an indeterminate amount of suspected shabu
o For type error to be valid: made in good faith; only a mistake; not what was intended
o SW can be valid in part as it is divisible = defect in 1 portion will not be sufficient to
void the entirety. But if there are errors in the application, like no probable cause, then
it can be void in its entirety
 Multiple Places subject of SW
o General Rule: one SW = one place
 Ratio: probable cause requirement states that the items related to the offense is
believed to be in one place
 Applicant cannot claim to believe that the item is either in place A or in place
B = FISHING EXPEDITION
o In implementing the SW, the place cannot be changed, enlarged, amplified
  Problem: what about places where there are multiple rooms, buildings?
 E.g. Address in SW is that of two-door apartment, but SW describes only one
apartment
 SW is still valid since the application and the warrant itself describes one
place
 However, the search must be limited to the apartment described
 E.g. Address in SW is a compound (many buildings) or a hotel (many rooms)
 SW is INVALID as it is too general
 Multiple Offenses subject of SW
o General Rule: one SW = one offense/felony
o Exception: Violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act
 SW can enumerate multiple provisions/sections of the DDA
 General Rule: Juridical persons cannot be held criminally liable
o Exceptions:
 The law states that it can be criminally liable (E.g. general banking law)
 The law specifies persons who can be held liable as agents of the juridical entity
(E.g. manager of corporation)
o If a corporation issues a check that bounces, who is held liable for violating BP 22?
The person who signed the check
 Who can contest SW:
o Owner of property or any other lawful occupant
o Owner of any item seized (person whose rights are affected)
o Cannot be objected to by third parties
o A corporation does not have the exclusive right to question the seizure of items
belonging to the corporation
 Manager also has authority to question such seizures
 He performs physical actions or delegated tasks on in behalf of the corporation as
its agent
o Assailing/Questioning SWs does NOT need the conformity of the public prosecutor if
the SW is applied for in anticipation of a criminal case
 Sec. 5, Rule 110 does not apply
 When to object to issuance of SW:
o Before he enters his plea
o Failure to object = waiver of right to object

SW Application --> SW hearing --> Issuance of SW --> Implementation of SW --> Post-

Implementation procedure
 Implementing a SW
a. Police officers serving the warrant must have the SW on their person
 Officers need to be guided and limited by the SW
 They must introduce themselves, state their purpose, and use the SW as their
basis/authority to search
 VS. Arrest warrant, where the officers need not have warrant w/them
b. As to time
 General Rule: Warrant shall be served during the day time
 Exception: If the property is on the person or the place ordered to be searched,
the warrant may insert a direction that it may be served at ANY TIME of the day or
night
 The rules allow the exercise of judicial discretion in fixing the time in which the
warrant may be served
 Subject to the 10 day validity limit from its date
 c. As to the manner of the search
 Witnesses: Search shall be made in the presence of the lawful occupant of the
premises or any member of his family
 In the absence of the lawful occupant, and there are no members of his
family present, then the SW must be executed in the presence of TWO
witnesses:
o Of sufficient age and discretion
o Residing in the same locality
 Right to break open door or window: If the officer is refused admittance, the
officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house or any part
of the house or anything therein. Provided that the ff requisites are complied with:
 Officer gives notice of his purpose and authority
 Officer is refused admittance to the place of directed search despite the
notice
 Purpose of breaking is to execute the warrant or to liberate himself or any
person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained therein
 Receipt: After the search, the seizing officer must give a detailed receipt of the
seized property to the lawful occupant
d. As to the duties of the seizing officer after service of warrant
 Delivery of the property seized to the judge who issued the warrant
 Property is in custodia legis
 Applicant can file a proper motion in the court, requesting that the seized
items be stored elsewhere
o E.g. storage of drugs in the DDB/PDEA
 Delivery of a true inventory of the property seized, which must be duly verified
under oath
 Verification: Rule 7, Sec. 4
 A violation of these duties shall constitute contempt of court
e. As to the duties of the judge after the 10 day period of validity of a SW
 Shall ascertain if the return has been made 10 days after issuance of the warrant
 If no return has been made, the judge shall:
o Summon the person to whom the warrant was issued
o Direct him to explain why no return was made
 If the return was made, the judge shall ascertain whether the giving of a
receipt for the property seized to the lawful occupant was complied with
 Failure to discharge this duty: judge is guilty of gross ignorance of the law
 What is a return?
 Basically a report on the action regarding the issued SW
 It is prepared by the implementing officer
 Must be filed immediately after the search in case the warrant was executed
on the 9th or 10th day (check the wording of the rule)
o Can be filed after 10 day lifespan of SW
 E.g. Search was conducted on the 10th day, return was filed
the day after

Remedies from the time the SW is issued

 Motion to Quash
o Filed in the court where the action has been instituted (Criminal Case Court)
o Filed in the court that issued the search warrant if there’s no criminal action that was
instituted (SW court)
  MTQ, if granted, would end the judicial process
 If SW court failed to resolve the action, and a criminal case is filed
subsequently in another court, the Criminal Case Court shall resolve the MTQ
 It is possible that an RTC issued the SW but an MTC will resolve the
MTQ filed in regard to said SW
o How do you know what to caption your motion? Motion to quash? Or Motion to
Suppress Evidence?
 MTQ is filed after the implementation of the SW
 Will render the fruits of the search void
 Yields the same result as the Motion to Suppress Evidence
o A Motion to Quash and a Motion to Suppress Evidence CANNOT be filed
simultaneously or successively in the same court (or in the Criminal Case Court if MTQ
was filed in the SW Court and a criminal case was filed)
 Different name, but the result is the same
 No re-hashing the grounds

Grounds for Motion to Quash

With regard to the SW application
 Substantive defects in the body of the application
 Missing formal requirements (Rule 7, Sec. 4 and 5)
 Not signed
 Court does not have authority (territorial jurisdiction)
With regard to defects in granting of warrant
 Questioning conducted is lacking
o No transcript of stenographic notes (TSN), which is the best evidence of questioning
o TSN is the product of the court deposition of witnesses and applicants in order to
ensure the procedure of questioning is complied with
 No personal knowledge
o Applicant and witnesses did not have personal knowledge
 Must have perceived the facts and circumstances claimed in the application
with their own five senses
 If it is not so perceived, then it is mere hearsay
 No actual hearing
o Pre-typed questions, fill in the blanks, mock up of TSN
o Abbreviation of proceedings; no probing questions
With regard to defects in search warrant issued
 SW has no particular description of place and property
o SW indicates more than one place
 SW issued orally by the judge
o VS Arrest warrant, which can be issued orally
o Has to be in writing, signed, and dated
 Not for one specific offense
With regard to the implementation
 Lawful occupant or required witnesses were not present
 Officers did not have the SW on their person
 Done after 10 days
 Done at night when the SW does not allow it
 Items seized are not included in the SW
o Not unless their taking can be justified by warrantless searches
 Done outside place indicated
NOTE: Violations of Sec. 11 (receipt given to owner) and Sec. 12 (delivery) will not void the SW
= it will merely result in administrative sanctions on the part of the officer

 When can the ordering the quashal of a SW by a court be the proper subject of an appeal?
o When there is a pending case, and the court grants the MTQ, such ordering of
quashal may be the subject of appeal
 As an assignment of error
o Effects of Quashal
 If SW issued is incidental to a pending case, the quashal is merely
interlocutory
 No determination of guilt yet, so trial will push through
 If SW issued is applied for in anticipation of a case, the quashal ends the
judicial process
 If the MTQ was filed in SW court, and the court grants it,
o What is the remedy of the complainant (the one who applied for the SW)?
 Motion for Reconsideration
 Rule 65 petition
 Not based on judgment of the SW Court yet because the quashal is a
result only of a judicial process, not a case (if no criminal case has
been filed yet)
 Refile the application
 If MTQ is denied and eventually a criminal case is filed
o What is the remedy of the respondent (the one whose property was seized)?
 Motion for Reconsideration
 Rule 65 petition

WARRANTLESS SEARCHES
1. MOVING VEHICLE
 Rationale: Inherent mobility of moving vehicles renders it impractical to obtain a SW
 Probable Cause Requirement
o In MV searches, there is a probable cause requirement but said probable cause
need not be substantiated by personal knowledge
 Can rely on tipped information
o Probable cause in MV searches is easier to establish (less stringent) than the
probable cause needed in applying for a SW
 Requirement: reasonable suspicion must be based on actual facts
 Limitations:
o Visual Search
 Requirement: probable cause
o Extensive Search
 A belief reasonably arising out of circumstances known to the seizing officer
that an automobile or other vehicle contains an item, article or object which
by law is subject to seizure and destruction
 Belief prior to the search that they would find the instrumentality or evidence
pertaining to a crime is in the vehicle to be searched
 Checkpoints
o Not illegal per se
 To a certain extent, checkpoints intrude on motorists' right to free passage
without interruption
 However, it involves only a brief detention of travelers = not violative of an
individual's right against unreasonable search
 o Under exceptional circumstances, checkpoints may be allowed and installed by the
government
 As where the survival of organized government is on the balance
 Where the lives and safety of the people are in grave peril
o When the situation clears and grave perils are moved, checkpoints have no reason
to remain
o Conducted in a fixed area
o Limit: Visual search
 Extensive searches are only allowed when there is probable cause to believe
that they will find the instrumentality of a crime or evidence pertaining to a
crime before they begin their warrantless search
 Cannot order occupant of a car to get out
 Differentiate People v Que & Caballes v CA
o Que: tip info (truck with certain plate no) --> patrolled vicinity --> saw truck described
by tip --> flagged it down --> inspected cargo and saw coconut slabs--> when
interviewed, driver told SPO1 Corpuz that there were sawn lumber inserted in
between the coconut slabs --> driver couldn't produce required documents regarding
the lumber --> seized = VALID SEARCH & SEIZURE
 It was limited to a visual search
o Caballes: routine patrol --> saw jeep covered by leaves --> flagged it down --> did a
routine inspection of the cargo --> moved leaves away and looked inside sacks -->
saw wires --> seized = INVALID SEARCH & SEIZURE
 It was an impermissible extensive search because there was no probable
cause to believe that motorist is a law offender or that they will be able to find
the evidence pertaining to a crime in the vehicle
 Fact that jeep was covered in leaves does not substantiate probable
cause to conduct an extensive search
2. PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE
 Rationale: Recognition of the fact that when police come across incriminating evidence not
covered by a warrant, they should not be required to close their eyes to it
o Regardless whether such evidence is related to the crime they are investigating
o It would be needless to require the police to obtain another warrant
 Objects in plain view of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view
are subject to seizure even without a search warrant and may be presented as evidence.
 Usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but
nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object.
 Requisites
Prior lawful justification to be present at the place
o Law enforcement officer, in search of the evidence:
 Has a prior justification for an intrusion or;
 Is in a position from which he can view a particular area
Inadvertent discovery
o Discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent
o Must not have known in advance the location of the evidence
o Did not exert any effort to look for it thru a search or searched it thru a hunch
or a smell
o Must be apparent on its face
o Discovery is not anticipated
o Rationale: plain view seizure will not turn an initially valid search into a
general one, while the inconvenience of procuring a warrant to cover an
inadvertent discovery is great—but where the discovery is anticipated, where
 the police know the location in advance, the requirement of a warrant to seize
imposes no inconvenience.
Evidently incriminating
o Immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be
evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise, subject to seizure
o Does not require an unduly high degree of certainty as to the incriminating
character of the evidence
o Only requires probable cause to associate the property with criminal
activity
 Nexus between viewed object and criminal activity
 Object to be seized must be plainly exposed to sight
 Limit: PV search cannot be made to extend to a general exploratory search from one object
to another until something incriminating at last emerges
 Is there a probable cause requirement? Yes. It is inherent in the items to be seized because
they are already generally contraband/illegal.
3. CONSENTED SEARCH
o When a person gives a law enforcement agent permission to search areas in which
such person has a reasonable expectation of privacy
 Consent must be voluntary
 Unequivocal
 Specific
 Intelligently given
 Untainted by any duress or coercion
 Consent is not to be lightly inferred
 Must be shown by clear and convincing evidence
 State has burden of proving that the necessary consent that was
obtained was freely and voluntarily given
o By clear and positive testimony
 Cannot be inferred from mere silence
o Passive conformity given under intimidating/coercive
circumstances
o Should not be just mere acquiescence to a lawful authority
o Requisites of a valid waiver/consent:
 Right to be waived exists
 Has knowledge of such right
 Actual intention to relinquish right
o When the prosecution seeks to justify a warrantless search by proof of voluntary
consent, it is not limited to proof that consent was given by the defendant, but may
show that permission to search was obtained from a third party who possessed
common authority over or other sufficient relationship to the premises or
effects sought to be inspected.
 This “third party” consent is what makes consent search fundamentally
different in nature from the waiver of a trial right.
o Is there a requirement for probable cause in consented search? No need.
4. STOP AND FRISK
 Stop and frisks are STILL within the meaning of “searches and seizures.” Whenever a police
officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has seized that
person. A frisk is also a search because it is still a careful exploration of the person in an
attempt to find a weapon (Terry v Ohio).
 An officer ‘stops’ an individual and detains him briefly for questioning upon suspicion that he
may be connected with criminal activity. Upon suspicion that the person may be armed, the
police should have the power to ‘frisk’ him for weapons or tap down the outer clothing.
 The police officer should properly introduce himself and make initial inquiries, approach and
restrain a person who manifests unusual and suspicious conduct, in order to check the
latter’s outer clothing for possibly concealed weapons.
 Note: flight only adds to suspicion; but flight per se is not suspicious
 NO PROBABLE CAUSE REQUIREMENT—only reasonable and articulable suspicion
o Must be overt acts of suspicious behavior committed by the accused plus a
reasonable belief/suspicion
o Limitation: pat down of outer garment (cannot ask to empty pocket
o Dual Purpose
 The general interest of effective crime prevention and detection, which
underlies the recognition that a police officer may, under appropriate
circumstances and in an appropriate manner, approach a person for
purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even without probable
cause; and
 The more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation which permit the
police officer to take steps to assure himself that the person with whom he
deals is not armed with a deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally
be used against the police officer.
 “In a protective search for weapons, a brief intrusion upon the
sanctity of a person, the interest is the neutralization of present
danger to the policeman and the public. There must only be
reasonable (not probable) cause to believe that based on the specific
inferences drawn through observations, the person is armed,
regardless of whether the officer has probable cause to effect an
arrest.” (Terry v Ohio)
o Valid Stop
 Requirement: GENUINE REASON (or the governmental interest which
allegedly justifies official intrusion upon the constitutionally protected interests
of the private citizen)
 A reasonable and articulable belief that criminal activity has happened
or is about to happen
o Officer must particularize the acts that led to his conclusion
o Reasonable belief is in accordance with officer's experience
and the surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the
person has weapons (or contraband) concealed about him
 Despite the lack of probable cause to make a full scale arrest
 Deep suspicion is not sufficient, nor a mere hunch.
o Valid Frisk
 Limit: mere part down outside the person's outer garment
 Not unreasonably intrusive
 Not broader than is necessary to find weapons in the person briefly
stopped
5. SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO LAWFUL ARREST
 Rationale: A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything
which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of the offense
o To prevent arresting officer from being harmed
 o To prevent the destruction of the instruments and other evidence of the commission
of the offense
 Lawful Arrest
o May either be:
 By virtue of a warrant lawfully procured
 By virtue of a warrantless arrest authorized under Sec. 5, Rule 113
o When there is no lawful arrest, the items seized are inadmissible in evidence
 Fruit of the poisonous tree
 Limits/Parameters of Search Incident to a lawful arrest (Sec. 13, Rule 126)
o The search must be limited to the following:
 Dangerous weapons
 Anything that may have been used in the commission of an offense
 Anything which constitute proof in the commission of an offense
o The search is not confined to the person lawfully arrested; can be to his immediate
control or reach
 It is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested
AND ALSO the permissible area within said person's reach
 Evidence and weapons within the area of his immediate control can
be seized
 Area of immediate control: area from within which he might gain
possession of a weapon or destructible evidence
 E.g. gun on a table or in the drawer in front of the person arrested
can be as dangerous to the arresting officer as one concealed in the
clothing of the person
 Not allowed: person arrested had his hands tied, and a gun in a
cabinet that was locked and found in a different area where he was
being detained
 Not allowed: warrantless search of the house of the accused which
yielded marijuana
 As applied to in flagrante delicto arrests, it is settled that “reliable information” alone,
absent any overt act indicative of a felonious enterprise in the presence and within
the view of the arresting officers, are not sufficient to constitute probable cause that
would justify an in flagrante delicto arrest.

6. EXIGENT/EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES
 Threat of a staged coup
 Courts closed
 Rare for SC to uphold a warrantless search based on this

7. HOT PURSUIT

8. CUSTOMS/AIRPORT SEARCHES
 Example of a regulatory/administrative search
o If you don’t want to be subjected to search, then don’t fly
o In pursuit of the implementation of laws by that particular government agency
 Probable cause not necessary, SW not needed; can show authority only
 But RTC not precluded from issuing its won SW
ARREST

 Definition: taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer for the
commission of an offense
 Probable cause: such facts and circumstance which would lead a reasonably discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be
arrested
 What is determinative of a person being under arrest—so long as the person has been
deprived of movement/liberty (i.e. handcuffed)
o No need for force or physical restraint; intention to submit or intention to arrest is
sufficient
 A person is under arrest when he is:
o In actual restraint; or
o Submitted himself to custody
 Arbitrary detention (124) vs Delay in delivery of detained (125)
o 124: detains person without legal ground; remedy: petition for habeas corpus within
the periods under Art. 125
o 125: detains with legal ground, failure to deliver to proper judicial authorities
 Reckoning: time of arrest; NOT when the crime is booked
 “Delivery” = filing of information against the accused
 When will the officers not be held liable under Art. 125
 Info filed within the periods
 Waiver when accused asks for preliminary investigation
 Why is arrest important
o Jurisdiction of court over accused: when accused is arrested or voluntary surrenders
o Important to know when warrant happened in order to count the period for when
delivery is needed under Art. 125, when the arrest is without warrant.
 If there is a warrant, the periods under Art. 125 do not apply.
 Requisites for warrant
o Inform arrestee of the cause and fact that warrant was issued
o Served any time/day/night
o Within 10 days, make a report
 If no report, explain why
 After 10 days, continues to be in force and does not suspend the validity of
the warrant
o Must be brought to the nearest jail/police station
 When is warrant of arrest issued
o AFTER filing of information, as determined by the judge
o OR a commitment order, if accused is already in custody
 2 species of warrant of arrest in practice
o Bench warrant: issued in open court, when accused has been required to be present
in court and he fails to appear. Judge issues it right then and there
o Alias warrant: re-issued Warrant of Arrest; reason: officers will not know if the
warrant has already been enforced/recalled, so for their protection, they could have
the prosecution re-issue the warrant
 Remedy for those detained without warrant of arrest
o Post bail
o Habeas corpus
o Motion to quash complaint or information
 If person already arrested and wants to contend validity of arrest
 o Motion to quash information – no jurisdiction of court over accused
o Can an illegal arrest be cured?
 Issuance of warrant (in exceptional cases)
 Waiver of objection to legality – submission to jurisdiction of court
o Motion to quash warrant of arrest
 Probable cause in the issuance of Warrant of Arrest vs Preliminary investigation
o Whose function to determine:
 WoA: Judge; juridical in nature
 PI: Prosecutor; executive in nature
o Issue
 WoA: PC to hold the person accountable for the offense charged
 PI: Reasonable ground to believe the accused is guilty and should be held for
trial
 Issuance of Warrant of Arrest can only be done AFTER PI, not while PI is still pending
 Warrant of arrest cannot be applied for; in the absence of any information in court, WoA
cannot be issued. WoA issued after filing of information