manner that perjury could be charged
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 (PPOP).
Alvarez v. CFI – violation of RSS
Search warrant - is an order in writing,
issued in the name of the People of the
Philippine Islands, signed by a judge or
a justice of the peace, and directed to a
peace officer, commanding him to
search for personal property and bring it
before the court (Sec 1, Rule 126)
proceeding in rem, sui generis.
Oath - includes any form of attestation
by which a party signifies that he is
bound in conscience to perform an act
faithfully and truthfully; and it is
sometimes defined as an outward
pledge given by the person taking it that
his attestation or promise is made under
an immediate sense of his responsibility
to God.
True test of sufficiency of an affidavit to
warrant issuance of a search warrant:
whether it has been drawn in such a
thereon and affiant be held liable for
dam. ages caused.
IN DETERMINATION OF
REASONABLENESS OF THE
SEARCH AND SEIZURE, WHAT ARE
THE FACTORS THAT MAY BE
CONSIDERED?
1. Circumstances involved
2. Purpose of the search,
3. Presence or absence or probable
cause,
4. The manner in which the search and
seizure was made,
5. The place or thing searched, and
6. The character of the articles procured
(Alvarez v. CFI)
Stonehill vs. DIokno – Right to RSS is
personal. Invoked only by the party
whose right was violated.
Nobody can represent the corporation
unless armed with a board resolution.
So regardless of the shareholding of a
stockholder or of the position of an
officer, he cannot raise defenses
available to the corporation without an
express authority from the board of
directors.
People v. Marti - The constitutional
guarantee against unreasonable
searches, seizures and arrests only
applies against the government and law
enforcement officers.
Law enforcement officer is a public
officer who has a duty:
 to arrest offenders of law; and
 to investigate the commission of
crimes.

WHAT PERSONAL PROPERTIES
THAT CAN BE SEIZED BY VIRTUE OF
A SEARCH WARRANT?
1. Subject of the offense;
2. Stolen or embezzled and other
proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or
3. Used or intended to be used as a
means of committing an offense (Sec. 3,
Rule 126, Rules of Court)
FOR HOW LONG IS A SEARCH
WARRANT VALID?
● 10 days counted from its date (Sec.
10, Rule 126, Rules of Court)
WHAT IS A WARRANT OF ARREST?
● An order in writing issued in the name
of the People of the Philippines, signed
by a judge and directed to a peace
officer commanding him to take a
person into custody in order that he may
be bound to answer for the commission
of an offense.
FOR HOW LONG IS A WARRANT OF
ARREST VALID?
 Valid until served
 But under the Rules of Court
particularly Rule 113 there is a
duty on the part of police officers
to make a return of the warrant
within 10 days from its receipt.
United Laboratories vs. Isip – search
warrant may be initiated by private
corporation.
The proceeding is not one against
any person, but is solely for the
discovery and to get possession of
personal property.
It is a special and peculiar remedy,
drastic in nature, and made necessary
because of public necessity.
PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE: (PIA)
(a) the executing law enforcement
officer has a prior justification for an
initial intrusion or otherwise properly in a
position from which he can view a
particular order;
(b) the officer must discover
incriminating evidence inadvertently;
and
(c) it must be immediately apparent to
the police that the items they observe
may be evidence of a crime,
contraband, or otherwise subject to
seizure.
WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES OF A
VALID WARRANT? (PPOP)
1. It must be based on probable cause
2. Determined personally by the judge
3. The examination must be under oath
or affirmation of the complainant and
witnesses
4. Must particularly describe the persons
or things to be seized or the place to be
searched.
(1) PROBABLE CAUSE
 Such facts and circumstances
antecedent to the issuance of the
warrant that are in themselves
sufficient to induce a reasonably
cautious man to rely upon them
and act in pursuance thereof.
 In relation to a search warrant,
probable cause refers to such
facts and circumstances which
would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to
believe that an offense has been
committed and that the object
 sought is in connection with the
crime and it can be found in the
place sought to be searched.
Mantaring v. Judge Roman – included
the owners of the house in the search
warrant.
WHAT ARE THE PROBABILITIES IN
SEARCH WARRANT?
1. The articles to be seized are
connected to a criminal activity, and
2. They are found in the place to be
searched
WHAT ARE THE PROBABILITIES IN
WARRANT OF ARREST?
1. The crime has been committed, and
2. Person who committed the crime is
probably guilty thereof.
In issuing warrants of arrest in
preliminary investigations, the
investigating judge must:
(a) have examined in writing and under
oath the complainant and his witnesses
by searching questions and answers;
(b) be satisfied that probable cause
exists; and
(c) that there is a need to place the
respondent under immediate custody in
order not to frustrate the ends of justice.
(2) DETERMINED PERSONALLY BY
THE JUDGE
Soliven v. Judge Makasiar – not
literally personal examination
(WARRANT OF ARREST)
In satisfying himself of the
existence of probable cause for the
issuance of a warrant of arrest, the
judge is not required to personally
examine the complainant and his
witnesses.
It is enough that:
1. the judge personally evaluated the
report of the public prosecutor as
well as the supporting affidavits
and if satisfied, issue a warrant of
arrest.
2. If not, require the issuance of
supporting affidavits of witness to
aid him in arriving at a conclusion
as to the existence of probable
cause, but no personal
examination is required
Silva v. Presiding Judge of RTC –
requires strict compliance with the
“personal” examination requirement.
(SEARCH WARRANT)
“SEC. 3. Requisite for issuing
search warrant.—A search warrant
shall not issue but upon probable cause
in connection with one specific offense
(Scattershot warrant) 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.
“SEC. 4. Examination of
complainant; record. —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 witnesses he may produce on
facts personally known to them and
attach to the record their sworn
statements together with any affidavits
submitted.”
WARRANTS NOT ISSUED BY THE
JUDGE
Esteban v. Vivo – the requirement of
probable cause, to be determined by the
judge, does not extend to deportation
proceedings.
Section 37 of the Immigration Law,
which empowers the Commissioner of
Immigration to issue warrants for the
arrest of overstaying aliens, is
constitutional. The arrest is a step
preliminary to the deportation of the
aliens who had violated the condition of
their stay in this country.
Harvey v. Santiago – deportation of 22
pedophiles.
As long as the purpose is to
execute a final order, administrative
officers may be authorized by law to
issue warrants, whether warrants of
arrest or search warrants.
Salazar v. Achacoso – Illegal
recruitment case.
The Closure and Seizure Order
was based on Article 38 of the Labor
Code. The Supreme Court held, “We
reiterate that the Secretary of Labor, not
being a judge, may no longer issue
search or arrest warrants. Hence, the
authorities must go through the judicial
process.
(3) THE EXAMINATION MUST BE
UNDER OATH OR AFFIRMATION OF
THE COMPLAINANT AND
WITNESSES
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN OATH AND
AFFIRMATION?
● The only difference is the basis of the
obligation.
● Oath - includes any form of attestation
by which a party signifies that he is
bound in conscience to perform an act
faithfully and truthfully; and it is
sometimes defined as an outward
pledge given by the person taking it
that his attestation or promise is
made under an immediate sense of
his responsibility to God. The oath
required must refer to the truth of the
facts within the personal knowledge of
the petitioner or his witnesses, because
the purpose thereof is to convince the
committing magistrate, not the individual
making the affidavit and seeking the
issuance of the warrant, of the existence
of probable cause.
WHAT IS THE TEST OF SUFFICIENT
OATH?
Whether it has been drawn in such a
manner that perjury could be charged
thereon and affiant be held liable for
damages caused. (Alvarez v. CFI)
● In an oath the obligation to tell the
truth is premised on belief in God. So
for those who do not believe in God
in lieu of an oath they may take
affirmation instead.
(4) MUST PARTICULARLY DESCRIBE
THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE
SEIZED OR THE PLACE TO BE
SEARCHED
WHAT DOES PARTICULARITY IN THE
DESCRIPTION MEAN?
That the police officer can identify
the place, the object, and the person
subject of the warrant.
Which means that even John Doe
warrants are allowed as long as the
warrant provides personal description
that will allow the police officer to identify
who is the subject of the warrant.
CAN THE POLICE OFFICER HAVING
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE
SUPPLEMENT WHAT IS LACKING IN
THE WARRANT?
NO. The particularity of the
description must rest on the description
on the warrant itself and not on the
circumstances which are personal to the
serving officers.
Mata v. Bayona
Search warrant invalid as judge
failed to conform with the essential
requisites of taking depositions and
attaching them to the record (Sec 5,
Rule 126). However, the illegality of the
search warrant does not call for the
return of the things seized, the
possession of which is prohibited (jai
Alai Case).
Section 5. 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 the witnesses he may
produce on facts personally known to
them and attach to the record their
sworn statements, together with the
affidavits submitted. 
DEPOSITION
Broadest Sense: to describe any
written statement verified by oath;
More technical and Appropriate
sense: is the testimony of a witness, put
or taken in writing, under oath or
affirmation before a commissioner,
examiner or other judicial officer, in
answer to interlocutory and cross
interlocutory, and usually subscribed by
the witnesses.
People v. Del Rosario – shabu
contained in a small canister
A search warrant is not a
sweeping authority empowering a
raiding party to undertake a fishing
expedition to seize and confiscate any
and all kinds of evidence or articles
relating to a crime.
Cannot be convicted of
possession of the shabu contained in a
canister and allegedly seized at his
house, for the charge against him was
for selling shabu with the information
alleging that the “accused, without legal
authority did . . . sell to a poseur buyer
an aluminum foil containing
Methamphetamine Hydrochloride . . .”.
Sale is totally different from possession.
ALSO THE FIREARM SEIZED. Search
warrant only says “undetermined
quantity of Methampethamine
Hydrochloride”
DOES THE CONSTITUTION ALLOW
GENERAL WARRANT?
SCATTERSHOT WARRANT?
NO. There is a general warrant when it
did not describe with particularity the
place to be searched and the person or
things to be seized. There is a
scattershot warrant when it is used for
more than one specific offense.
Sec 4, Rule 126: 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.
WARRANTLESS ARREST
SEC. 5 RULE 113, ROC
1. When, in his presence, the person
to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense
(arrest in flagrante delicto);
2. When an offense has just been
committed, and he has probable
cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances that the person to
be arrested has committed it (hot
pursuit); and
3. 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 is temporarily confined while his
case is pending, or has escaped
while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
“IN HIS PRESENCE” – in flagrante
delicto arrests
People v. Sucro – selling marijuana at
chapel
“In his presence” only means that
the police officer making the arrest sees
the commission of the offense although
at a distance or heard the commission of
the offense and proceeded at once to
the scene of the crime and effected the
arrest. – DO NOT REQUIRE PHYSICAL
PRESENCE
In flagrante delicto arrests can
be effected as long as the police
officer has used any of his faculties
in order to observe the commission
of the offense.
SEARCH INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL
WARRANTLESS ARREST
People v. Gerente - while drinking
liquor and smoking marijuana, REYES
overheard intention to kill Charito Blace.
Policemen proceeded in the Gouse of
Gerente based on testimonies of Reyes.
The appellant contends that the
trial court erred in admitting the
marijuana leaves as evidence in
violation of his constitutional right not to
be subjected to illegal search and
seizure, for the dried marijuana leaves
were seized from him in the course of a
warrantless arrest by the police officers.
We do not agree. The search of
appellant's person and the seizure of the
marijuana leaves in his possession
were valid because they were
incident to a lawful warrantless
arrest.
Umil v. Ramos (Subversion a
Continuing Crime) – Regional
Intelligence Operations Unit of the
Capital Command received confidential
information about the member of the
NPA Sparrow Unit (Liquidation Squad)
being treated for a gunshot wound at the
St. Agnes Hospital in Roosevelt Avenue
in Quezon City.
Rolando Dural was arrested for
being a member of the New Peoples
Army (NPA), an outlawed subversive
organization. Subversion being a
continuing offense, the arrest of Rolando
Dural without warrant is justified as it
can be said that he was committing an
offense when arrested. The crimes of
rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or
proposal to commit such crimes, and
crimes or offenses committed in
furtherance thereof or in connection
therewith constitute direct assaults
against the State and are in the nature
of continuing crimes.
HOT PURSUIT
Macad v. People – Bing bush bus;
pungent smell of marijuana: opened the
box. Arrested petitioner at opened the
box as an incident of a lawful
warrantless arrest.
Petitioner asserts that the search
conducted was neither an incident of a
lawful arrest nor was it made with his
consent. He assails that PO1 Falolo's
actions belie that he had probable cause
to believe that petitioner was
transporting marijuana because it took
him a long time to make any overt act in
arresting petitioner.
Respondent argues that at the
moment petitioner boarded the bus,
PO1 Falolo had probable cause to
conduct the warrantless search and
seizure on petitioner's personal effects
due to the distinctive smell of marijuana
emanating from petitioner's carton
baggage and the unusual shape of the
Sagada woven bag. It also states that
the probable cause of PO1Falolo was
reinforced when petitioner ran away
when asked for permission to check his
baggage. Respondent concludes that
petitioner's warrantless arrest and
incidental search from such arrest were
based on the existence of probable
cause.
A search of a moving vehicle may
either be a mere routine inspection or an
extensive search. The search in a
routine inspection is limited to the
following instances:
(1) where the officer merely draws aside
the curtain of a vacant vehicle which is
parked on the public fair grounds;
(2) simply looks into a vehicle;
(3) flashes a light therein without
opening the car's doors;
(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
inspection; and
(6) where the routine check is conducted
in a fixed area.
Based on the foregoing,
Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 requires the
apprehending team, after seizure and
confiscation, to immediately conduct a
physically inventory; and photograph the
same in the presence of (1) the
accused or the persons from whom
such items were confiscated and/or
seized, or his/her representative or
counsel, (2) a representative from the
media and (3) the DOJ, and (4) any
elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy
thereof.
In the amendment of R.A. No. 10640,
the apprehending team is now required
to conduct a physical inventory of the
seized items and photograph the same
in (1) the presence of the accused or
the persons from whom such items
were confiscated and/or seized, or
his/her representative or counsel, (2)
with an elected public official and (3)
a representative of the National
Prosecution Service or the media who
shall be required to sign the copies of
the inventory and be given a copy
thereof. In the present case, as the
alleged crimes were committed on
November 27, 2011, then the provisions
of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its
IRR shall apply.
The physical inventory and
photograph shall be conducted at the
place where the search warrant is
served; or at the nearest police station
or at the nearest office of the
apprehending officer/team, whichever is
practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures; Provided, further, that non-
compliance with these requirements
under justifiable grounds, as long as the
integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items are properly preserved by
the apprehending officer/team, shall not
render void and invalid such seizures of
and custody over said items[.]
Go vs. CA – no preliminary investigation
The rule is that the right to
preliminary investigation is waived when
the accused fails to invoke it before or
at the time of entering a plea at
arraignment. In the instant case,
petitioner Go had vigorously insisted on
his right to preliminary investigation
before his arraignment. At the time of his
arraignment, petitioner was already
before the Court of Appeals on
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
precisely asking for a preliminary
investigation before being forced to
stand trial.
To effect a warrantless arrest
under hot pursuit, the chain of events
from the commission of the offense to
the actual arrest must be connected with
unbroken links.
The determinative factor in hot
pursuit arrests is the link between the
commission of the offense and the
actual arrest. The lapse of time is
irrelevant. What is relevant is that the
chain of events from the commission
up to the actual arrest must be
unbroken.
People vs. Rodrigueza – by bust
operation “gave a certain object
wrapped in plastic”; RAID without search
warrant on the house.
After the buybust, poseur buyer
taduran went to the headquarters.
Thereafter, agents of the NARCOM
conducted a raid in the house of
Jovencio ROdrigueza, and confiscated
dried marijuana leaves and plastic
syringes. The search however, was not
authorized by any search warrant.
REASONABLE SEARCHES AND
SEIZURES EVEN WITHOUT
WARRANT
 Owner of the premises waives his
right against such incursion;
 Search is incidental to a lawful
arrest
  Made on vessels and aircraft for
violation of customs laws;
 Made on automobiles for the
purpose of preventing violations of
smuggling or immigration laws;
 When it involves prohibited articles
in plain view; or
 In cases of inspection of buildings
and other premises for the
enforcement of fire, sanitary and
building regulations.
WARRANTLESS SEARCH
People v. Amminudin – M/V WIlcon 9
in Ilo-ilo (Invalid arrest)
There was no warrant of arrest or
search warrant issued by a judge after
personal determination by him of the
existence of probable cause. Contrary to
the averments of the government, the
accused-appellant was not caught in
flagrante nor was a crime about to be
committed or had just been committed
to justify the warrantless arrest allowed
under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court.
Even expediency could not be invoked
to dispense with the obtention of the
warrant as in the case of Roldan v. Arca,
for example. Here it was held that
vessels and aircraft are subject to
warrantless searches and seizures for
violation of the customs law because
these vehicles may be quickly moved
out of the locality or jurisdiction before
the warrant can be secured. 
The present case presented no
such urgency. From the conflicting
declarations of the PC witnesses, it is
clear that they had at least two days
within which they could have obtained a
warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin
who was coming to Iloilo on the M/V
Wilcon 9. His name was known. The
vehicle was Identified. The date of its
arrival was certain. And from the
information they had received, they
could have persuaded a judge that there
was probable cause, indeed, to justify
the issuance of a warrant. Yet they did
nothing. No effort was made to comply
with the law. The Bill of Rights was
ignored altogether because the PC
lieutenant who was the head of the
arresting team, had determined on his
own authority that a "search warrant
was not necessary."
Without the evidence of the
marijuana allegedly seized from
Aminnudin, the case of the prosecution
must fall. That evidence cannot be
admitted, and should never have been
considered by the trial court for the
simple fact is that the marijuana was
seized illegally. It is the fruit of the
poisonous tree, to use Justice Holmes'
felicitous phrase. The search was not an
incident of a lawful arrest because there
was no warrant of arrest and the
warrantless arrest did not come under
the exceptions allowed by the Rules of
Court. Hence, the warrantless search
was also illegal and the evidence
obtained thereby was inadmissible.
People v. Malmstedt – Swedish
international; checkpoint in Mt. Province
– hashish in teddy bear and pouch:
INCIDENTAL TO A LAWFUL ARREST
SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when
lawful.––A peace officer or a private
person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to
be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit
an offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just
been committed, and he 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
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.

In cases falling under paragraphs

(a) and (b) hereof, the person arrested
without a warrant shall be forthwith
delivered to the nearest police station or
jail, and he shall be proceeded against
in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7.
Accused was searched and
arrested while transporting prohibited
drugs (hashish). A crime was actually
being committed by the accused and he
was caught in flagrante delicto. Thus,
the search made upon his personal
effects falls squarely under paragraph
(1) of the foregoing provisions of law,
which allow a warrantless search
incident to a lawful arrest.

Luz v People – driving motorcycle

without helmet; while arrested, the
police was alerted by accused’s uneasy
movement (there is suspected shabu in
jacket)

ARREST – is the taking a person into

custody in order that he or she may be
bound to answer for the commission of
an offense.