Reviewer: Search and Seizure

Eubs Capon [UC LAW]

Properties Subject to Seizure

Under Rule 126, Section 2, of the Rules of Court, the following are subject to search and
Seizure:

1. Property Subject of the offense

2. Property stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense

3. Property used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense.

Search and Seizure must not be made only for the purpose of obtaining evidence to be used
against the accused, the warrant is unlawful as it would violate the constitutional right against
self-incrimination.

In People v Sy Juco, the Supreme Court held that the search warrant in question was
unreasonable and unlawful for the “sole purpose thereof was to fish for evidence or search for
it by exploration, in case some could be found”.

In Stonehill v Diokno, The Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained illegally is inadmissible
in a court as a fruit of a poisonous tree. However, seized items shall not be return except when
circumstances warrant [or only by a court order]

Admissibility of Illegally Seized Evidence

Articles illegally seized are not admissible as evidence, pursuant to the doctrine originally
enunciated in Stonehill v Diokno. The rule has been constitutionally affirmed in Article III, Sec
3(2), which provides that such evidence “shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.” Such evidence is “the fruit of poisonous tree.”

This reverses the non-exclusionary rule announced in Moncado v People’s Court to the effect
that evidences illegally seized are still admissible as long as it is not excluded in the Rules of
Court, on the theory that the criminal should not be allowed to go free merely because “the
constable has blundered.”

Definitions of Exclusionary Rule

Exclusionary rule refers to the consequence of a search and seizure without a warrant or by
authority of an invalid warrant. As a consequence, the articles obtained “shall not be admissible
for any purpose in any proceeding” Article 3, sec 3[2] of the 1987 Constitution. Non-
exclusionary rule, on the other hand, as enunciated in the Moncado case, refers to the
admissibility of articles as evidence even if they were seized illegally as long as it is not
excluded in the rules of court. However, the non-exclusionary rule has long been abandoned
upon the ratification of the new constitution which explicitly provides the non-admissibility of
such articles as evidence.

Exceptions to the inadmissible of articles illegally seized are:

1. Independent Source Doctrine- source taken out from originally obtained evidence
although illegally seized

2. Inevitable Discovery Doctrine- evidence comes from inevitable discovery

3. Good Faith Rule- acting or in reliance of good faith

Seized articles must be returned to the owner

As a general rule, articles illegally seized shall be returned back to the owner. However, seized
items used for illegal activities which were obtained by government agents illegally will not be
returned to the owner. Those will be under the custody of the government and will only be
returned to the owner upon court order.

Failure to raise the issue of admissibility tantamount to a waiver

If the accused failed to raise the issue of admissibility of evidence against him on the ground that
it had been illegally seized, said failure constitutes a waiver of the protection granted by the
constitution and evidences illegally obtained can be admitted against the accused. [People v
Zaspa]

Warrantless Searches and Seizures

Generally, warrantless search and seizure constitutes a violation to the protection guaranteed by
the constitution. However, there are instances when a search may be validly made
notwithstanding noncompliance with the required procedures.

Rule 113, Sec 5 of the Rules of Court provides a guideline that a peace officer or even a private
person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:

1. When such person has in fact just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense in his presence; [flagrante delicto]

2. When an offense has in fact just been committed and he has a personal knowledge of
facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and

3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment.
In other words, a fugitive.

Warrantless Search as an incident to a valid Arrest

 1. When an arrest is effected by virtue of a valid warrant or under any of the above
circumstances, a search may be made as an incident to such valid arrest.

2. Individual being arrested may be frisked for concealed weapon that may be used against
the arresting officer

3. All unlawful articles maybe searched and seized

- Those found in his person

- within his IMMEDIATE CONTROL

- and those within the plain view

Stop and Frisk

In Terry v Ohio, an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior
he is investigating at close range is precisely dangerous to the officers or to others, he way
conduct a limited protective search for concealed weapons.

Stop and frisk has two-fold interest

1. effective way of prevention and detection

2. the more pressing interest of protection and preservation

Waiver of right

- An arrest may also be made without warrant where the right thereto is waived by the
person arrested, provided he knew of such right and knowingly decided not to invoke
it. [PP v Tabar]

- But no waiver is to be presumed where the person merely submits to the arresting
officer in manifestation of his respect for authority or where he allows entry into his
home as a sign of hospitality and politeness. [Magoncia v Palacio]

- No consent to the illegal search or seizure can be implied by mere passive

conformity.[PP v Aruta]

- Posting of bail constitutes waiver of any irregularity attending the arrest of a person
and estops him from questioning its validity. [Callanta v Villanueva]

- Accused is stopped from questioning the legality of his arrest where he never raised it
before entering his plea. [PP v Salvatiera]

Warrantless Search on moving vehicles

 1. Vessels and aircraft for violation of Customs Law because vessel can quickly moved out
of the locality or jurisdiction in which the search must be sought before the warrant could
be secured [Roldan v Arca]

2. Land vehicles may also be stopped and search in violation of customs laws [Papa v
Mago]

However

- Police or agents needs to find probable cause to justify warrantless search

- Circumstances must lead to finding probable cause [Salvador v People]

- A tip from a reliable source may constitute probable cause [People v Malmstedt]

Valid warrantless search is limited only to: [Malacat v CA]

1. Customs Searches

2. Search of moving vehicles

3. Seizure of evidence in plain view

4. Consent Search

5. Search incidental to a lawful arrest

6. Stop and frisk

Privacy of Communication and Correspondence

Art III Sec 3(1)

“the privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order
of the court or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law.”

- This provision was taken from the Malolos Constitution which rules out
eavesdropping on private conversations through the use of electronic gadgets and thus
covers with its protection even intangible things.

Anti-wiretapping Act prohibits any person, not being authorized by all the parties of ant private
communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or
arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept or record or to communicate the content thereof to
any other person.
Exception:

The use of these records is permitted only in civil and criminal proceedings involving certain
specified offenses, mainly those affecting national security.

Wire-tapping may be permitted only:

- upon a lawful order by the court

- to be issued upon compliance with the Constitutional requirements for the issuance
of a warrant

- shall be effective only for sixty days.

- Obtained illegally cannot be admitted in evidence in any proceeding

In Gaanan v IAC, telephone extension was not among the devices covered by this law and that
the use of that instrument was not prohibited as a “tap.”

In Ex Parte Jackson, letters and sealed packages in the mails may examined only as to their
external appearance and weight and may not be opened except in accordance with the
constitutional requirements of a lawful search and seizures.