1. WHAT IS LIBERTY TO ABODE AND THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL?

Liberty to abode includes the right to choose one’s

residence to leave it whenever one pleases, within the
limits prescribed by law, to travel where one wills, and to
return to his place of residence, except in the interest of
national security, public safety, and health.

2. Sec. 2 of Art. III only prohibits unreasonable searches and

seizures.

3. Searches and seizures are unreasonable unless authorized by a

validly issued search warrant or warrant of arrest.

4. The prohibition against illegal searches is directed only

against the government and its agents tasked with law
enforcement but not against private person (PP vs. Andre
Marti, 193 SCRA 57, January 18, 1991).

5. A reasonable search is valid. It is not to be determined by a

fix formula but it is to be resolved according to the facts of
each (Valmonte vs. De Villa, Sept. 29, 1989).

6. Is every warrantless search an illegal search?

No. the following are exceptions:

→ search made incidental to a valid arrest;
→ search of vehicles
→ seizures of goods concealed to avoid payment of customs
duties or taxes;
→ seizure of evidence in plain view; and
→ when there is waiver of the right.

7. Checkpoints are not illegal per se. They are allowed under
exceptional circumstances when the survivals of organized
government are in great peril. Thus, when the situation clears
and such grave perils are removed, check points are removed
and they will have no reason to remain.

8. For as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its

occupants subjected to a body search, and the inspection of
the vehicles is limited to a visual search, routine checks
(implementing COMELEC gun ban) cannot be regarded as violation
of an individuals right against unreasonable search (PP vs.
Escano, January 28, 2000).

9. Routine search could be justified as a warrantless search of a

moving vehicle if there is probable cause (Valmonte vs. De
Villa).
10.What is the consequence of an invalid search or seizure or
arrest?

Any evidence obtained in such search or seizure or arrest

is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding (Art.
III, section 3[2]). If the legally obtained evidence is
excluded from being considered by the judge, the likelihood
is that the accused may be acquitted.

11.The essential requisites of a valid warrant are:

a. it must be issued upon probable cause.

b. probable cause must be determined presumably by a judge.
c. the issuing judge must examine under oath or affirmation
the complainant and the witnesses he may produce.
d. the warrant must particularly described the place to be
searched and the person or things to be seized.

12. Probable cause for an arrest or for the issuance of a warrant

of arrest would mean such facts and circumstances which would
lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed by the person sought to be
arrested.

13. Probable cause for a search would mean such facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and
prevent man to believe that an offense has been committed and
that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in
the place sought to be searched.

14.The military alleged that Burgos is in possession or has in

his control printing equipment and other paraphernalia, news
publications and other documents which were used and are all
continuously used as means of committing the offense of
submission. The SC said that the foregoing allegations are
mere conclusions of law unsupported by particulars (Burgos vs.
Chief of Staff 133 SCRA 800, 1984).

15.The master tapes of copyrighted films are necessary for the

issuance of a search warrant against contraband video tape
dealers. The courts presume that the duplicate or copied tapes
were necessarily produced from the tapes of the complainant of
a search warrant (Century Fox Films vs. CA, 237 SCRA 367,
1994). In Columbia Pictures vs. CA the SC said the master tame
is required only where there is a doubt as to the true never
between the master tape and pirated copies.

16. A search warrant for things need not point to a specific

offender. For warrant of arrest, it has to point a specific
offender (Webb vs. De Leon, August 23, 1995).
17.For issuing a warrant, judge determines the existence of
Probable cause.

18.For the filing of information, the prosecutor determines the

existence of probable cause.

19.The police officer received a tip that the accused were

repacking prohibited drugs in a certain house in Sta. Brigida
St. Karuhutan, Valuenzuela, Metro Manila. They proceeded there
with the informer and when they peeped on a window they saw
accused repacking the marijuana, they arrested them. The SC
said there was an illegal search. The state cannot in a
cavalier fashion intrude into the persons of its citizens as
well as into their houses, papers and effects (PP vs. Bolasa
Dec. 22, 1999).

20.The commission of Immigration can only issue a warrant to

carry out a final order of deportation. He is not a judge (Qua
Chu Gan vs. BID, 33 SCRA 413).

21.Art. 34 of the Labor Code is unconstitutional, the Secretary

of Labor cannot issue a search or arrest warrant, he is not a
judge (Salazar vs. Achacoso, March 14, 1990).

22. Personal Examination in issuance of warrant of arrest.

i. Exclusive and personal responsibility of the judge to

satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause.
ii. To satisfy himself does not require the judge to
personally examine the complainant and his witnesses.

iii. Judge may rely on the prosecutor’s finding (Soliven vs.

Makasiar, November 14, 1998).

23.For purposes of issuance of search warrant, affidavit of the

complainant and witnesses is not sufficient; there must be a
searching inquiry.

24.The judge may require the prosecutor to submit additional

evidence to determine probable cause. It is not a ministerial
duty but a judicial function that he performs.

25.A judge cannot issue a warrant of arrest based on a

prosecutor’s certification. The issuance must be supported by
affidavits transcript if any and other supporting documents
(PP vs. Inting, July 1990 and Lim vs. Felix, February 1991).

26. Particularity of description:

i. When the description therein is as specific as the

circumstances will ordinarily allow.
 ii. When the description expresses conclusions of facts
and not of law.

iii. When the things described are limited to those which

are directly related to the offense for which the
warrant is issued.

27. The purpose of requiring particularity of description in to

prevent abuse by the officer in enforcing the warrant by
leaving him no description as to who or what to search or
seize.

28.John doe warrant description personal of accused is valid.

29. A John doe warrant against 50 accused is in the nature of a

general warrant that violates requirement of particularity
(Pangandaman vs. Casar 159 SCRA 599, 1998).

30.The warrant is not valid if it authorizes the officer to pick

up anything he pleases (Stonehill vs. Diokno, June 19, 1957)
It states: Books of accounts, financial records, vouchers,
journals, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, portfolios,
credits journals, typewriters, and other documents and / or
papers showing all business transactions including
disbursement receipts, balance sheets and related project and
loss statements.

31. What is material in determining the validity of a search is

the place stated in the warrant itself, not what the
applicants had in their mind or head represented in the proofs
they submitted to the court that issued the warrant. The
particularization of the description of the place to e search
may properly be done only by the judge and only in the warrant
itself, it cannot be left to the discretion of the police
officers conducting the search ( PP vs. CA 291 SCRA 400).

32.If there is an obvious typographical error, the Search Warrant

can be corrected, and it remains valid (Burgos vs. Chief of
Staff 133 SCRA 800, 1984).

33.Exclusionary Rule (Sec. 3 [2], Art. 111), any evidence

obtained without a warrant or by authorized of an invalid
warrant is in-admissible in any proceedings.

34.Goods seized by the Bureau of Customs cannot be ordered

returned by a judge because the Bureau have already acquired
jurisdiction over it (Collector vs. Judge Villaluz, June 18,
1976.

35.Illegally seized firearms are inadmissible but they will

remain in custody pending determination of their legality of
possession (Alih vs. Castro 151 SCRA 279).
36.The motorcycle allegedly use as the get away vehicle in the
shooting of congressman Moises Espinosa – illegally seized by
the policemen two days after the shooting shall be returned
even if it is needed for the prosecution of the accused
(Bagalihoz vs. Fernandez, June 27, 1991).

37. Nolasco vs. Pano, 147 SCRA 509, 1987.

- Accused was arrested on board a jeepney.

- Then his house was searched.

- Search incident to a valid arrests is limited to the

search on person of the arrested.

- It may not be extended to a place other than that of the

arrest.

- The SC made permanent the injunction against the use of

evidence seized in an illegal search.

38. The objection to an unlawful search or seizure and to

evidence obtained thereby is purely personal and cannot be
availed of by third parties (Stonehill vs. Diokno, June,
1967).
1. Warrantless searches incidental to a lawful arrest ( PP
vs. Sucro, 195 SCRA 388 [ 1991] , PP vs. Malustedt 198
SCRA 401 [1991]).

2. Seizures of evidence in plain view.

a. Prior valid intrusion based on warrantless arrest in

which are legally present in the pursuit of their
official duties.

b. Evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police

who had the right to be where they are.

c. The evidence must be immediately apparent.

d. Plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without

further search.

3. Search of a moving vehicle ( Roldan vs. Arca, 65 SCRA

336).

4. Consented warrantless search. The waiver to be valid, it

must be shown :

a. The right to exist.

 b. The person must have actual or constructive knowledge
that such right exist.

c. He has actual intention to relinquish that right.

5. Customs search or seizure of goods concealed to avoid

duties.

6. Stop and frisk.

7. Exigent and emergency situation.

39. Terry vs. Ohio (1968). (The stop and frisk rule)

The facts are as follows:

- two men repeatedly walk past a store.

- they returned to confer with a third man.

- this aroused the suspicion of a police officer.

- one of them was frisked and yielded a gun.

- the other two were also frisked and they also have
guns.

- the search was held to be valid became the

policeman was trying to protect himself

39. Stop and frisk serves two fold interest.

a. effective crime prevention and detection.

b. the more pressing interest of safety and

preservation.

40.A search incidental to a valid arrest must have been

conducted at about the time and only at the place where
the suspect was arrested or the premises or surrounding
under his immediate control.

41.The essential requisites of probable cause must still be

satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure can be
conducted (PP vs. Aruta, 288 SCRA 626). It must be based
on reasonable ground of suspicion or belief that a crime
has been committed or is about to be committed.
42.Search on a fishing vessel used for illegal fishing is
valid.

a. because they are equipped with powerful motors to

elude pursuit.

b. the seizure is in incidental to a lawful arrest of

the crew (Roldan vs. Arca 65 SCRA 336, July 25,
1975).

43. Extensive search without warrant could be resorted to:

a. if there is reasonable or probable cause to believe

that the motorist is a law of offender or there is
an instrument or evidence pertaining to the
commission of a crime on board.

b. were smell of marijuana emanated from a plastic bag

inside the vehicle.

c. were the accused acted suspiciously and attempted to

flee.

44. Espiritu said to his sympathizers “Bukas tuloy na ang

welga natin hangang sa magkagulo na”, then in a later
press conference he called for a nationwide strike. He
was in the act of committing a crime when arrested.
Therefore, his arrest was valid.

45.Where the officer learned two days before that Aminudin

will arrive in Iloilo on board MV Wilcon, but they did
not obtain a search warrant. The arrest of Aminudin was
held to be illegal. The PC officers have all the time to
secure search warrant against Aminudin for possession of
prohibited drugs such as marijuana ( PP vs. Aminudin, 163
SCRA 402 ).

46.People vs. Malmsdedt ( 163 SCRA 402 )

i. Accused was arrested on a check point at

Camp Dangwa.

ii. There was a report that vehicles from Sagada

were use to transport marijuana.
 iii. There was also information that a Caucasian
coming from Sagada was carrying a prohibited
drug.

iv. On inspection officers noticed a bulge on

the waist of accused.

v. Accused refused to show his identification

papers.

vi. Hashhish were found in his waist bag.

vii. He picked up two traveling bags which

contain prohibited drugs.

The search was valid for being an accident to a valid

arrest because it was made on probable cause that he was
committing a crime. There was also a valid search of a
moving vehicle.

47.People vs. Lo Ho Wing (January 21, 1991).

i. a taxi with accused on board was stopped by

PC soldiers based on a tip given by a DPA
that accused was carrying shabu.

ii. defendant contends that the PC knew two days

before that he will arrived with uncertain
quantity of shabu at the NAIA so they should
have secured a warrant.

The SC said there was a search of a moving vehicle;

hence it was valid besides the accused waived by giving
consent to the search.

48.A consent to a search on a hotel room allegedly given by

a manicurist who was previously identified as the wife of
the occupant is valid said the SC in Lopez vs. Comm. Of
Customs (Dec.12, 1975). It served the parties well
because they were saved from gossips and innuendos.

49.A permission to look for a rebel soldier inside a house

is not a permission to conduct a room to room search for
firearms (Sps. Veroy vs. Layague, June 18, 1972).

50.Upon surveillance accused were found to be acting with

probable cause as pedophiles. They were arrested in the
 company of naked boys. The SC said that the arrest was
valid because there is already a probable cause. The
order of arrest by the commissioner of the BID is not to
determine probable cause (Harvey vs. Santiago, 162 SCRA
840) because probable cause was determined by
surveillance.

51.The exception on warrantless arrest.

a. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has

committed, is actually committing, or is attempting
to commit an offence;

b. When an offence 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; 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 is temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped while
being transferred from one confinement to another.