Sec. 10. Validity of search warrant.

A search warrant shall be valid for ten (10)

days from its date. Thereafter, it shall be void.
It is valid for ten days from its date
After 10 days, the police officer should make a return to the judge who
issued it
If the police officer doesnt make a return, the judge should summon him and
require him to explain why no return was made.
If the return was made the judge should determine if the peace officer issued
the receipt to the occupant of the premises from which the things were taken
The judge shall also order the delivery to the court of the things seized.
Q: If the warrant was executed even before the expiration of the 10 day period, can
the peace officer use the warrant again before it expires?
A: NO. The purpose for which it was issued has already been carried out.

Exception: If the search wasnt finished within 1 day, the warrant can still be
used the next day provided it is within the 10 day period.

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.
It is only the person lawfully arrested who is to be searched:
1. For dangerous weapons
2. For anything which may have been used in the commission of an offense
3. For anything which constitute proof in the commission of an offense
Requirements in a Warrantless Search Incidental to a Lawful Arrest
1. Arrest must be lawful
*Arrest must precede the search. The process cannot be reversed.
*Reliable information alone is not sufficient to justify a warrantless arrest. The
rule requires in addition that the accused perform some overt act that would
indicate that he has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
an offense.
2. It must be contemporaneous with the arrest in both time and place.

*Must have been conducted at about the time of arrest or immediately thereafter
and only at the place where the suspect was arrested.
3. Within the vicinity of the person arrested or within his immediate
control.
*A valid arrest allows the seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons either
on the person of the one arrested or within the area of his immediate control (area
from within which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence).
Immediate possession and control rule
It is reasonable for the arresting officer to search the person arrested in order
to remove any weapon that the latter might use in order to resist arrest or
effect his escape.
It is also reasonable for the arresting officer to seize any evidence on the
arrestees person in order to prevent its concealment or destruction.
The search must be made after the arrest. The objective is to make sure that
the life of the peace officer will not be endangered.
Search Incidental to a Lawful Arrest
Search of a moving vehicle
*Justified because it is not practicable to secure a warrant because the vehicle
can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be
sought.
*Must be cursory
*Probable cause to believe prior to the search that an evidence to a crime would
be found.
*Jurisprudence dictates that probable cause must exist at all times.
Checkpoints
*Checkpoints are not illegal per se. Those which are warranted by the exigencies
of public order and are conducted in a way least intrusive to motorists are allowed.
*limited to a visual search
Buy bust operations
*a form of entrapment legally employed by peace officers as an effective way of
apprehending drug dealers in the act of committing an offense.

*accused is caught in flagrante delicto

*peace officers are not only authorized but duty bound to apprehend and search
the violator.
*no rigid or textbook method
*No prior surveillance required especially where the police operatives are
accompanied by their informant during the entrapment.
*The recording or non recording of the boodle money in the police blotter will
not necessarily lead to an acquittal as long as the sale of the prohibited drug is
adequately proven.
Entrapment and Instigation
* Entrapment is the employment of such ways and means for the purpose of
trapping or capturing a law breaker.
*Instigation is the means by which an accused is lured into the commission
of an offense charged in order to prosecute him.
Entrapment and Instigation Distinguished
Entrapment
Criminal intent to commit an offense originated from the inducer
Law enforcers act as active co-principals
Leads to the acquittal of the accused
Instigation
Criminal intent originates in the mind of the accused
Law enforcers merely facilitate the apprehension of the criminal by employing
schemes.
Does not bar prosecution and conviction
2 tests to determine the occurrence of entrapment
1. Objective Test
*primary focus is on the particular conduct of law enforcement officials or their
agents and the accuseds predisposition becomes irrelevant.
*People v Doria: details of the purported transaction during the buy bust operation
must be clearly and adequately shown.

*Strict scrutiny of courts insure that law abiding citizens are not unlawfully
induced to commit an offense.
2. Subjective test
*the focus is on the intent or predisposition of the accused to commit a crime
*Courts should look at all factors to determine the predisposition of an accused
to commit a crime in so far as they are relevant to determine the validity of the
defense of inducement
Plain View Doctrine
*Objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position
to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence.
*Requisites: 1. prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he
can view a particular area; 2. inadvertent discovery; 3. it is immediately apparent to
the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime; 4. No need for
further search. All must concur
*Common sense rule: failure to seize the object once observed might involve
danger to the public and to the officer.
*Whatever a person knowingly exposes to public view, even in their own home
or office, is not private.
Stop and Frisk
*limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons
*Probable cause is not required
*A genuine reason must exist, in light of the police officers experience and
surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that a crime has either taken place or
is about to take place and the person to be stopped is armed and dangerous.
People v. Mengote 210 SCRA 174
Facts:
Information was given about three suspicious looking persons. A surveillance team
was then deployed. Upon seeing that the men were looking side by side and one
holding his abdomen, the policemen approached the group and the latter tried to
run away. The suspects were then searched wherein a handgun and a fan knife was
seized. It was found later on that the handgun was part of those stolen from a house
wherein robbery was staged.
Held:

A person may not be stopped and frisked in broad daylight on a busy street on a
mere unexplained suspicion.
Consented Warrantless Searches
* Only the person whose right may be violated can give the consent; It is a
personal right.
*The person making the consent knows that he has the right.
*In spite of the knowledge of the right, he voluntarily and intelligently gives his
consent.