SEC. 7 Right to Break Door or Window to Effect Search.

The officer, if refused admittance to the of directed

search after giving notice of his purpose and authority, may break open any outer or inner door or window of a
house or any part of a house or anything therein to execute the warrant or liberate himself or any person
lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained therein.

THE KNOCK AND ANNOUNCE PRINCIPLE
Police Officers were obliged to give the appellant notice, show to her their authority, and demand that
they be allowed entry. They may only break open any outer or inner door or window of a house to
execute the search warrant if, after such notice and demand, such officers are refused entry to the place
of directed search. (in violation of such, would mean a violation of their right to privacy of their abode
and would result to violation of constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure if the
entry were illegal, whether accomplished by force, or by threat or show of force or obtained by stealth,
or coercion)
The method of entry of an officer into a dwelling and the presence or absence of such notice are as
important considerations in assessing whether subsequent entry to search and/or arrest is
constitutionally reasonable.
A search would violate the Constitution if the entry were illegal, whether accomplished by force, by
illegal threat or mere show of force.
Generally, officers implementing a search warrant must announce their presence, identify themselves to
the accused and to the persons who rightfully have possession of the premises to be searched, and to
show them the search warrant to be implemented by them and explain to them said warrant in a
language or dialect known to and understood by them.
It must be emphasized that the notice requirement is designed not only for the protection of the liberty
of the person to be searched or of his property but also the safety and well-being of the officers serving
and implementing the search warrant.

EXCEPTION: WHEN UNANIMOUS INTRUSION PERMISSIBLE
Unannounced intrusion into the premises is permissible when:
(a) A party whose premises or is entitled to the possession thereof refuses, upon demand, to open it
(b) When such person in the premises already knew of the identity of the officers and of their authority
and persons (refusing admittance thereto, after announcing his authority and purpose Rule 113
(Section 11))
(c) When the officers are justified in their honest belief that there is an imminent peril to life or limb
(d) When those in the premises, aware of the presence of someone outside, are then engaged in
activity which justifies the officers to believe that an escape or the destruction of the evidence is
being attempted
It must be noted that there is no exact formula for the determination of the reasonableness of the entry.
Each case is to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. In determining the lawfulness of an un-
allowed entry and the existence of a probable cause, the courts are concerned only with what the
officers had reason to believe at the time of the entry.
Pp v. Veloso an officer making an arrest may take from the person arrested any money or property
found upon his person, which was used in the commission of the crime (or fruit thereof) and may be
used as evidence for the trial on the cause, but not otherwise

SEC. 8 Search of house, room, or premises to be made in presence of two witnesses.No search of a house,
room, or any other premises shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any
member of his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in
the same locality.

Quintero v. NBI such a procedure wherein members of the raiding team can roam around the raided
premises unaccompanied by any witness, as the only witness is in the other room being searched, is held to be
violative of both the spirit and the letter of the law.

SEC. 9 Time of making search.The warrant must direct that it be served in the day time, unless the affidavit
asserts that the property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched, in which case a direction may
be inserted that it be served at any time of the day or night.

TIME OF MAKING SEARCH
GR: Search warrants must be served during the daytime
XPN: When the application asserts that the property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched,
in which case a direction may be inserted that it be served at any time of the day or night.
- Where the search is to be made during the night, the authority for executing the same at that time
should appear in the directions on the face of the warrant
- When the purpose of the warrant have been carried out, the authority to search is on end.

TIME OF SERVICE
The policy behind the prohibition of night searched in the absence of a specific judicial authority is to
protect the public from the abrasiveness of official intrusions. A night search is a serious violation of
privacy.
While it is required that the search must be at a reasonable hour, the exact time of the execution of a
warrant should be left to the discretion of the law enforcement officers. (E.g. searching at 7:30 pm at a
suburban area at which the residents are still up-an-about is held valid)

SEC. 10 Validity of search warrant a search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from its date. Thereafter,
it shall be void.

DURATION OF SEARCH
- A search warrant cannot be used every day for 10 days, and for a different purpose each day and after
the articles for which the warrant was issued have been seized, the same warrant cannot be used as an
authority to make another search.
- (Uy Kheytin v. Villareal) If its object or purpose cannot be accomplished in 1 day, the same may be
continued the following day or days until completed, provided that it is still within the 10-day period.
- Absent plausible explanation, a search warrant execution which commenced with conduct damaging to
property without prior exhaustion of other possibilities known to have the least association with the
individual connected with the criminal conduct under investigation, should be deemed unreasonable.
- (Purcell v. State) Since the officers did not immediately seize the black case, which contained the
equipment described in the warrant, but launched a thorough search of the entire upstairs, the court held
that the fruits of the search must be suppressed

SEC. 11 Receipt for the property seized.The officer seizing property under the warrant must give a detailed
receipt for the same to the lawful occupant of the premises in whose presence the search and seizure were
made, or in the absence of such occupant, must, in the presence of at least two witnesses of sufficient age and
discretion residing in the same locality, leave a receipt in the place in which he found the seized property.

Quintero v. NBI The requirement in the rule that a witness should attest to the making of the receipt, was not
complied with. This requirement of the Rules was rendered irrelevant, when the one who attested to the
receipt from the raiding party was himself a member of the raiding party.

SEC. 12 Delivery of property and inventory thereof to court; return and proceedings thereon (a) the officer
must forthwith deliver the property seized to the judge who issued the warrant, together with a true inventory
thereof duly verified under oath.
(b) Ten (10) days after issuance .of the search warrant, the issuing judge shall ascertain if the return has
been made, and if none, shall summon the person to whom the warrant was issued and require him to explain
why no return was made. If the return has been made, the judge shall ascertain whether section 11 of this Rule
has been complied with and shall require that the property seized be delivered to him. The judge shall see to it
that subsection (a) hereof has been complied with.
(c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed and kept by the custodian of the log book on search
warrants who shall enter therein the date of the return, the result, and other actions of the judge.
A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of court.

NOTE: Such amendment was taken from paragraph g of A.C. No. 13 to ensure strict compliance in the
implementation of the search warrant after the issuance thereof.

DELIVERY OF PROPERTY AND INVENTORY THEREOF TO COURT WHICH ISSUED WARRANT
- The officer must forthwith deliver the property seized to the judge who issued the warrant, together with
a true inventory thereof duly verified under oath.
- (Asian Surety & Insurance Co. v. Herrera) it was held that the respondents transgressed the Receipt
requirement when not stating the nature and kind of documents contained in the folders of which there
where about a thousand of them that were seized

COURT APPROVAL TO RETAIN SEIZED PROPERTY
- Approval by court which issued the search warrant is necessary for the retention of the property seized by
the police officers; and only then will their custody be considered custody of the court.
- Absent such approval, the police officers have no authority to retain possession of the thing seized, more
so to deliver the property to another agency like the NBI
- Only the court which issued the search warrant may order their release if no criminal case arising from
the search warrant is filed in another court.

SEC. 13 Search incident to lawful arrest.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.

WARRANTLESS SEACH AND SEIZURE

GR: Search and seizure must be supported by a valid warrant.
XPN:
1. A search incidental to a lawful arrest
2. A search of a moving vehicle
3. Consented Search (knowingly agreeing to be searched or waiver of objection to illegal search)
4. Plainview Doctrine (if the articles are open to the eye and hand and the peace officers come upon them
unintentionally)
5. Persons exercising police authority under the customs law, except in a dwelling house (1973 Const.
authorizes a responsible officer to issue a warrant; 1987 Const. only authorizes judges to issue a search
warrant)
6. Exigent Circumstances (J. Renato Puno) searches based on situations where some kind of emergency
makes obtaining a search warrant impractical, useless, dangerous or unnecessary
7. Stop and Frisk applies also for exception in probable cause for arrests in flagrante delicto.

NOTE:
Whether the arrest, search and seizure is with or without a warrant, the minimum requirement under the
Constitution is there must be Probable Cause
The Duty to scrutinize warrantless searches and seizure is on a case-to-case basis.
Thus, [t]he constitutional validity of a warrantless search and seizure is pre-eminently the sort of question
which can only be decided in the concrete factual context of the individual case (Pp v. CFI of Rizal)
Thus, J. Teehankee goes for the view that when the guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure is
invoked, there is a need to scrutinize t facts rigorously to preclude any infringement thereof.

I. FIRST EXCEPTION: SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO LAWFUL ARREST

RULE: an officer making an arrest may take from the person arrested any money or property found upon his
person, which was used in the commission of the crime or was the fruit of the crime or which might furnish
the prisoner with the means of committing violence or escaping, or which may be used in evidence in the
trial of the case (Aballe v. Pp)
- A lawful arrest may be made either while a crime is being committed or after its commission. The right to
search includes in both instances that of searching the person of him who is arrested, in order to find and
seize things in connected with the crime as (a) its fruits or as (b) the means by which it is committed.
- When one is legally arrested for an offense, whatever is found in his possession or in his control may be
seized and used in evidence against him and an officer may make an arrest without a warrant if the officer
believes upon reasonable grounds that he committed a felony

GR: An arrest must precede the search which is merely an incident to a lawful arrest
- Where a search first undertaken, then an arrest effected based on evidence produced by the search,
both such search and arrest would be unlawful, for being contrary to law
XPN: If the police officer had probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of the search

WARRANTLESS SEARCH V. SEARCH WITH WARRANT
- In the first, there must first be a lawful arrest to precede the search, in the latter, only those things
which have been mentioned in the warrant are those that can be seized because in excess of such would
just result into fruits of the poisonous tree

EXTENT OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE INCIDENTAL TO LAWFUL ARREST
a. SCOPE such must be strictly tied to and justified by the circumstances which rendered its initiation
permissible (the manner of conducting search and seizure is vital to inquiry if they were warranted at
all); such must be limited at time of the arrest and only within the place of the arrest
b. PURPOSE OF SEARCH to take from the person arrested any money or property found upon his person,
which was used in the commission of the crime or was the fruit of the crime or which might furnish the
prisoner with the means of committing violence or escaping, or which may be used in evidence in the
trial of the case
c. ADAMS v. WILLIAMS an individual being arrested may be frisked for concealed weapons, that may be
used against the arresting officer and all unlawful articles found in his person or within his immediate
control may be seized
d. PROPERTY TO BE SEIZED is limited to (a) dangerous weapons or (b) anything which may be used as a
proof of the commission of the offense
e. SEARCH BEYOND PERSON such may be justified to prevent the arrestee from destroying evidence of
the crime within his reach; the search may extend beyond the person but not to search the entire house
for evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made
f. SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO LAWFUL ARREST limited to (a) body search and (b) to that point within the
reach or control of the person arrested

IMMEDIATE CONTROL TEST
- The scope of the warrantless search incidental to lawful arrest is limited to the person and the area
within which the arrestee is limited to the person and area within which the arrestee could reach for a
weapon or reach for an evidence to destroy it (simply meaning within his immediate control and plain
view)
- The objects in plain view, who has the right to be in that position to have that view, are subject to
seizure and may be presented into evidence
- Search of the room of the accused who was arrested outside the house is not permitted unless there is
consent
- (Pp v. Ang Chun Kit) Where in the vehicle, there was a driver who could be an accomplice, the search of
the vehicle is now deemed to be within his reach, thus evidence obtained in there is admissible.
II. SECOND EXCEPTION: SEARCHES OF VEHICLES

RATIONALE: This has been justified on the ground that the mobility of the motor vehicle makes it possible for
the vehicle being searched to move out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought
(making it impossible to secure a warrant)
HOWEVER, the peace officers are limited to routine checks where the examination of the vehicle is limited
to visual inspection and such search is constitutionally permissible only if the officers made it upon
probable cause (upon a belief reasonably arising out of circumstances known to the seizing
officer, that an automobile contains items, articles or objects which by law is subject to seizure
and destruction OR those which may be used as evidence pertaining).
MOTOR CARS: may extend even in the exterior upon showing of a probable cause

NOTE: The physical intrusion of a part of the body of an agent, like his head into the vehicle allowed him to
see and smell things which is beyond that portion of the vehicle which may be viewed from outside and into
the area protected by the 4
th
Amendment and is not permissible in the absence of probable cause

PASSENGERS OF CAR NOT HELD LIABLE this is due to the reason that the car it not his, as such, there was
no showing that they knew of the presence of the hashish in the truck of the car of that they saw the same
before it was seized,

PEOPLE v. LO HO WING a probable cause based in information are justified; like that of an intelligence
report gathered from surveillance activities on the syndicate; however, such knowledge is still insufficient to
fulfill the requirements for the issuance of a search warrant

CHECKPOINT CASES:
a. Valmonte v. de Villa not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Those which are reasonable are not
forbidden. A reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed formula but is to be resolved
according to the facts of each case; the existence of check points is thus valid because of the alarming
rise in lawlessness and violence in such places; it may be true that such checkpoints by those men in
uniform is susceptible of abuse, but, at the cost of occasional inconvenience, discomfort or even
irritation to the citizen, such checkpoints during these abnormal times, when conducted within
reasonable limits, are the price we pay for an orderly society and a peaceful community
b. People v. Maspil the checkpoints was held valid, citing the case of Valmonte; also, this is a case of in
flagrante delicto for transporting an illegal drugs at the time of their arrest

III. THIRD EXCEPTION: CONSENTED SEARCH

RULE: The right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure may be waived either expressly or
impliedly (when one voluntarily submits to a search or consents to have it made of his person or premises).
As such, a search and seizure cannot be stigmatized as unreasonable and thus offensive to the Constitution if
consent be shown.

ELEMENTS OF VALID WAIVER:
1. That the right exists
2. That the person involved had knowledge, actual or constructive, of the existence of such rights
3. That the said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right
*A waiver, or consent cannot however, be presumed simply because the accused failed to object to the
search, such elements must first concur.
* Declaration by the officer that he will search the vehicle is no waiver of consent to search



INSTANCES WHERE THE PRINCIPLE IS NOT STRICTLY FOLLOWED:
1. The submissive stance of the accused without any protest was held as a waiver
2. Where the accused voluntarily agreed to a frisk when was pointed out by the victim as one of the
robbers.
3. Where the accused while with the police has his vehicle being searched without any protest and he have
freely accompanied the police officers to the car
4. Where one voluntarily admits to a search and consents to have it made of his person or premises, he is
precluded from later complaining thereof. The right to be secure from unreasonable search is impliedly
made.

NOTE: People v. Burgos the accuseds silence during the warrantless search should not be lightly taken as
consent of that search, but rather construed, as a demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the law.
- Consent of the accused must be made by clear and positive terms (in other words it must be voluntary
in order to validate an otherwise illegal detention and search); for consent given under intimidating or
coercive circumstances is no consent within the constitutional guarantee
- VOLUNTARY means that it is unequivocal, specific and intelligently given, uncontaminated by any
duress or coercion

TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES PRINCIPLE: (burden of proof is within the State)
- The question whether consent to a search was in fact voluntary is a question of fact to be determined
from the totality of all circumstances. Relevant to this determination are the following characteristics of
a person giving consent and the environment in which consent is given:
(1) The age of the defendant
(2) Whether he was in a public or secluded location
(3) Whether he objected to the search or passively looked on
(4) The education and intelligence of the defendant
(5) The presence of coercive police procedures
(6) The defendants brief that no incriminating evidence will be found
(7) The nature of the police questioning
(8) The environment in which the questioning took place
(9) The possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person consenting

IV. FOURTH EXCEPTION: PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE

RULE: Objects in the plain view of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are
subject to seizure and may be presented in evidence. Under this exception, when unanticipated evidence
lying in an officers plain view is discovered during a proper search for other items, the officer may seize the
unanticipated object.

RATIONALE: The Court has reasoned that requiring an officer to obtain a warrant before confiscating
evidence lying at his feet would impose a pointless administrative burden, and, in the case of a discovered
weapon, could prove dangerous

LIMITATION ON THE PLAIN VIEW SEIZURE
Plainview alone is never enough to justify the warrantless seizure of evidence. There must be:
(1) Prior justification for intrusion
(2) Inadvertent discovery of the evidence
(3) Immediate apparent illegality of the evidence before the police (only probable cause and not absolute
certainty is required)
NOTE: Once a valid search warrant is obtained, the plain view doctrine can no longer provide any basis for
admitting the other items, subsequently found