SEARCH AND SEIZURE

LIM VS FELIX
FACTS: On March 17, 1989, at about 7:30 o'clock in the morning, at the vicinity of the airport road of the
Masbate Domestic Airport, located at the municipality of Masbate province of Masbate, Congressman Moises
Espinosa, Sr. and his security escorts, namely Provincial Guards Antonio Cortes, Gaspar Amaro, and Artemio
Fuentes were attacked and killed by a lone assassin. Dante Siblante another security escort of Congressman
Espinosa, Sr. survived the assassination plot, although, he himself suffered a gunshot wound. An investigation
of the incident then followed.
Thereafter, and for the purpose of preliminary investigation, the designated investigator filed an amended
complaint with the Municipal Trial Court of Masbate accusing Vicente Lim, Sr. et al of the crime of multiple
murder and frustrated murder in connection with the airport incident.
After conducting the preliminary investigation, the court issued an order concluding that a probable cause has
been established for the issuance of a warrant of arrest of named accused..
On October 30, 1989, Fiscal Alfane filed with the Regional Trial Court of Masbate, four (4) separate
informations of murder against the twelve (12) accused with a recommendation of no bail.
On November 21, 1989, petitioners Vicente Lim, Sr. and Susana Lim filed with us a verified petition for change
of venue w/c was authorized, from the RTC of Masbate to the RTCt of Makati to avoid miscarriage of justice. The
cases were raffled to Branch 56 presided by respondent Judge Nemesio S. Felix.
Petitioners Vicente Lim, Sr. and Susana Lim filed with the respondent court several motions and manifestations,
among others was an order be issued requiring the transmittal of the initial records of the preliminary inquiry
or investigation conducted by the Municipal Judge Barsaga of Masbate for the best enlightenment of this
Honorable Court in its personal determination of the existence of a probable cause or prima facie evidence as
well as its determination of the existence of guilt, pursuant to the mandatory mandate of the constitution that
no warrant shall issue unless the issuing magistrate shall have himself been personally convinced of such
probable cause.
Respondent court issued an order denying for lack of merit the motions and manifestations and issued warrants
of arrest against the accused including the petitioners herein.

ISSUE : Whether or not a judge may issue a warrant of arrest without bail by simply relying on the
prosecution's certification and recommendation that a probable cause exists.

HELD: If a Judge relies solely on the certification of the Prosecutor as in this case where all the records of
the investigation are in Masbate, he or she has not personally determined probable cause. The determination is
made by the Provincial Prosecutor. The constitutional requirement has not been satisfied. The Judge commits a
grave abuse of discretion.

Manalili v CA(GR 113447) Oct. 9, 1997

Facts:
At about 2:10 PM on April 11, 1988, Police Anti-Narcotics Unit of Kalookan City conducted surveillance along A.
Mabini Street, in front of the Kalookan City Cemetery. This was done after receiving information that drug
addicts were roaming around said area.
Upon reaching the cemetery, the policemen chanced upon a male person, the petitioner, in front of the cemetery
who appeared high on drugs. The petitioner had reddish eyes and was walking in a swaying manner.
Petitioner was trying to avoid the policemen, but the officers were able to introduce themselves and asked him
what he was holding in his hands. Petitioner resisted. Policeman Espiritu asked him if he could see what the
petitioner had in his hands. The petitioner showed his wallet and allowed the officer to examine it. Policeman
Espiritu found suspected crushed marijuana residue inside. He kept the wallet and its marijuana contents and
took petitioner to headquarters to be further investigated.
The suspected marijuana was sent to the NBI Forensic Chemistry Section for analysis.

Issue: Whether or not the search and seizure of the suspected marijuana is unreasonable, and hence
inadmissible as evidence.
Held:
The general rule is a search and seizure must be validated by a previously secured judicial warrant; otherwise,
such a search and seizure is unconstitutional and subject to challenge. Any evidence obtained in violation of
this constitutionally guaranteed right is legally inadmissible in any proceeding.
The exceptions to the rule are: (1) search incidental to a lawful arrest, (2) search of moving vehicles, (3)
seizure in plain view, (4) customs search, and (5) waiver by the accused of their right against unreasonable
search and seizure. In these cases, the search and seizure may be made only with probable cause. Probable cause
being at best defined as a reasonable ground of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
themselves to warrant a cautious man in the belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which
he is charged; or the existence of such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the item(s), article(s) or object(s) sought
in connection with said offense or subject to seizure and destruction by is in the place to be searched.
Additionally, stop-and-frisk has already been adopted as another exception to the general rule against a search
without a warrant.
In the present case, petitioner effectively waived the inadmissibility of the evidence illegally obtained when
he failed to raise the issue or object thereto during the trial.
The Supreme Court affirmed with modifications the assailed Decision and Resolution of the respondent court.

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. EDISON SUCRO

G.R. No. 93239

March 18, 1991

Facts:
Pat. Roy fulgencio, a member of the INP Kalibo, Aklan was instructed by P/Lt Vicente Seraspi Jr., Station
commander, to monitor the activities of appellant. Fulgencio positioned himself to a house, adjacent of which i
a chapel. Fulgencio saw appellant enter the chapel taking something which turn out later to be marijuana from a
compartment of a cart found inside the chapel and return to the street where he handed the same to a buyer.
Fulgencio radioed Seraspi and reported the activity, Seraspi instructed Fulgencio to continue monitoring.
At about 6:30 PM Fulgencio again called up Sraspi to report the third buyer later identified as Ronnie
Macabante, was transacting with appellant.
At that point, the team seraspi proceeded to the area and fulgencio told seraspi to intercept Macabante and
Appellant. Team Seraspi caught up with macabante at a crossing. Upon seeing the police Macabante throw
something at the ground which turned to a tea bag of marijuana. Macabante admitted that he brought the same
from appellant. The police team was able to overtake and arrest appellant.
Issue:
1.

Whether or not the arrest without warrant of the accused is lawful

2.

Whether or not the evidence resulting from arrest is admissible

Ruling:
The Supreme Court held that under Section 5 Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure for the instance that
arrest without warrant is considered 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 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. In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, the person
arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be
proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule 112.

An offense is committed in the presence or within the view of an officer when the officer sees the offense,
although at the distance, or hears the disturbance created thereby and proceed at once at the scene the act
of surveillance
Second requirement: the act of macabante, throwing of the marijuana and the admission, constitute that he just
committed an illegal act which the police officer had personal knowledge, being members of the team which
monitors Sucros nefarious activity
People vs bati police officers have personal knowledge of the actual commission of the crime when it had
earlier conducted surveillance activities.
Evidence - admissible because the arrest is valid.

ARSENIO VERGARA VALDEZ vs. People of the Philippines

G.R. No 170180

November 23, 2007

Facts:
Petitioner Arsenio Valdez was found guilty by the lower courts for the violation of Section 11 of RA 9165
(illegal possession of dangerous drugs) after dried marijuana leaves were found in his possession by three
barangay tanods who made a search on him
Petitioner denied ownership and purported that he had just alighted from the bus when one of the barangay
tanods approached him and requested to see the contents of his bags. The petitioner was then brought by the
three tanods to the house of Brgy. Captain Mercado, who again ordered to have the bag opened. During which,
the dried marijuana leaves were found.
Petitioner prays for his acquittal questioning, although for the first time on appeal, that his warrantless
arrest was effected unlawfully and the warrantless search that followed was likewise contrary to law.
Issue: Whether or not the petitioner should be acquitted for the lack of a warrant supporting the arrest and
the search.
Held: The Court ruled for the reversal of the decision by the lower courts. The accused was acquitted by
reasonable doubt.
Section 5, Rule 113 of the Rules on Criminal Procedures provides for the only occasions permitting a
warrantless arrest: (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 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 temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
The Court held that none of the circumstances was attendant at the time of the arrest.
The Court also posed 2 exceptions to the said rule, to wit: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt
act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2)
such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the arresting officer.
None of the petitioners actuations (i.e. his looking around and alleged fleeing upon approach of the tanods)
is adequate to incite suspicion of criminal activity to validate the warrantless arrest.
However, the Courts decision was not only hinged on this premise but also on the fact that the lower courts
failed to establish the veracity of the seized items by virtue of the chain of custody rule and in view of the
contrasting testimonies by the prosecution witnesses.
Failure of the lower courts to satisfy the test of moral certainty, the accused was thus acquitted.
The Court added that the petitioners lack of objection to the search and seizure is not tantamount to a waiver
of his constitutional right or a voluntary submission to the warrantless search and seizure.
G.R. No. 128222

June 17, 1999

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
CHUA HO SAN @ TSAY HO SAN, accused-appellant.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
In response to reports of rampant smuggling of firearms and other contraband, Chief of Police Jim Lagasca Cid
of Bacnotan Police Station, La Union began patrolling the Bacnotan coastline with his officers. While
monitoring the coastal area of Barangay Bulala, he intercepted a radio call at around 12:45 p.m. from Barangay
Captain Juan Almoite of Barangay Tammocalao requesting for police assistance regarding an unfamiliar speedboat
the latter had spotted. According to Almoite, the vessel looked different from the boats ordinarily used by
fisherfolk of the area and was poised to dock at Tammocalao shores. Cid and six of his men led by SPO1 Reynoso
Badua, proceeded immediately to Tammocalao beach and there conferred with Almoite. Cid then observed that the
speedboat ferried a lone male passenger, who was later identified as Chua Ho San. When the speed boat landed,
the male passenger alighted, carrying a multicolored strawbag, and walked towards the road. Upon seeing the
police officers, the man changed direction. Badua held Chuas right arm to prevent him from fleeing. They then
introduced themselves as police officers; however, Chua did not understand what theyre saying. And by
resorting of sign language, Cid motioned with his hands for the man to open his bag. The man acceded to the
request. The said bag was found to contain several transparent plastics containing yellowish crystalline
substances, which was later identified to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu. Chua was then brought to
Bacnotan Police Station, where he was provided with an interpreter to inform him of his constitutional rights.
ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless arrest, search and seizure conducted by the Police Officers constitute a
valid exemption from the warrant requirement.
RULING: The Court held in the negative.
The Court explains that the Constitution bars State intrusions to a person's body, personal effects or
residence except if conducted by virtue of a valid of a valid search warrant issued in accordance with the
Rules. However, warrantless searches may be permitted in the following cases, to wit:
search of moving vehicles,
seizure in plain view,
customs searches,
waiver or consent searches,
stop and frisk situations (Terry search), and
search incidental to a lawful arrest.
It is required in cases of in flagrante delicto that the arresting officer must have personal knowledge of such
facts or circumstances convincingly indicative or constitutive of probable cause. Probable cause means a
reasonable ground of suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a
cautious man's belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which he is charged. In the case at
bar, there are no facts on record reasonably suggestive or demonstrative of CHUA's participation in on going
criminal enterprise that could have spurred police officers from conducting the obtrusive search. CHUA was not
identified as a drug courier by a police informer or agent. The fact that the vessel that ferried him to shore
bore no resemblance to the fishing boats of the area did not automatically mark him as in the process of
perpetrating an offense. With these, the Court held that there was no probable cause to justify a search
incidental to a lawful arrest.
The Court likewise did not appreciate the contention of the Prosecution that there was a waiver or consented
search. If CHUA could not understand what was orally articulated to him, how could he understand the police's
"sign language?" More importantly, it cannot logically be inferred from his alleged cognizance of the "sign
language" that he deliberately, intelligently, and consciously waived his right against such an intrusive
search.
Finally, being a forbidden fruit, the subject regulated substance was held to be inadmissible in evidence.
Hence, the accused was acquitted as the evidence was not sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

PEOPLE VS. TANGLIBEN [184 SCRA 220; G.R. No.L-63630; 6 Apr 1990]

Facts: Patrolmen Silverio and Romeo Punzalan were conducting surveillance at the San Fernando Victory Liner
Terminal. At around 9:30pm they noticed a person, Medel Tangliben, carrying a traveling bag who acted
suspiciously. They confronted him, inspected his bag, and there they found marijuana leaves. The accused was
then taken to the Police Headquartersfor further investigations. The TC found Tangliben guilty of violating
sec.4 art. 2 of the RA 6425 or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
Issue: Whether or Not there was an unlawful search due to lack of search warrant.
Held: No. Rule 113 sec. 5 provides the a peace officer or a private person may w/o a warrant arrest a person
when in his presence the person to be arrested has committed, is committing, or is attempting to commit an
offense.
In the present case, the accused was found to have been committing possession of marijuana and can be therefore
searched lawfully even without a search warrant. Another reason is that this case poses urgency on the part of
the arresting police officers. It was found out that an informerpointed to the accused telling the policemen
that the accused was carrying marijuana. The police officers had to act quickly and there was not enough time
to secure a search warrant.

(UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE)

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,petitioner Vs. LEILA REYES JOHNSON, respondent
[GR 138881, 18 December 2000]
FACTS: Leila Reyes Johnson was, at the time of the incident, 58 years old, a widow, and a resident of Ocean
Side, California, U.S.A. She is a former Filipino citizen who was naturalized as an American on 16 June 1968
and had since been working as a registered nurse, taking care of geriatric patients and those with Alzheimer's
disease, in convalescent homes in the United States. On 16 June 1998, she arrived in the Philippines to visit
her son's family in Calamba, Laguna. She was due to fly back to the United States on July 26. On July 25, she
checked in at the Philippine Village Hotel to avoid the traffic on the way to the Ninoy Aquino International
Airport (NAIA) and checked out at 5:30 p.m. the next day, 26 June 1998. At around 7:30 p.m. of that day, Olivia
Ramirez was on duty as a lady frisker at Gate 16 of the NAIA departure area. Her duty was to frisk departing
passengers, employees, and crew and check for weapons, bombs, prohibited drugs, contraband goods, and
explosives. When she frisked Johnson, a departing passenger bound for the United States via Continental
Airlines CS-912, she felt something hard on the latter's abdominal area. Upon inquiry, Mrs. Johnson explained
she needed to wear two panty girdles as she had just undergone an operation as a result of an ectopic
pregnancy. Not satisfied with the explanation, Ramirez reported the matter to her superior, SPO4 Reynaldo
Embile, saying "Sir, hindi po ako naniniwalang panty lang po iyon." She was directed to take Johnson to the
nearest women's room for inspection. Ramirez took Johnson to the rest room, accompanied by SPO1 Rizalina
Bernal. Embile stayed outside. Inside the women's room, Johnson was asked again by Ramirez what the hard object
on her stomach was and Johnson gave the same answer she had previously given. Ramirez then asked her "to bring
out the thing under her girdle." Johnson brought out three plastic packs, which Ramirez then turned over to
Embile, outside the women's room. The confiscated packs contained a total of 580.2 grams of a substance which
was fount by NBI Chemist George de Lara to be methamphetamine hydrochloride or "shabu." Embile took Johnson and
the plastic packs to the 1st Regional Aviation and Security Office (1st RASO) at the arrival area of the NAIA,
where Johnson's passport and ticket were taken and her luggage opened. Pictures were taken and her personal
belongings were itemized. Johnson was charged for the possession of 3 plastic bages of methamphetamine
hydrochloride, a regulated drug, weighing a total of 580.2 grams; a violation of 16 of RA 6425 (Dangerous
Drugs Act), as amended by RA 7659. On 14 May 1999, the Regional Trial Court, Branch 110, Pasay City, found
Johnson guilty and sentenced her to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and to pay a fine of P500,000.00
and the costs of the suit. Johnson appealed.
ISSUE: Whether the extensive search made on Johnson at the airport violates her right against unreasonable
search and seizure.
RULING: The constitutional right of the accused was not violated as she was never placed under custodial
investigation but was validly arrested without warrant pursuant to the provisions of Section 5, Rule 113 of tie
1985 Rules of Criminal Procedure which provides that "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
person to be arrested has committed it; and xxx." The circumstances surrounding the arrest of the accused falls
in either paragraph (a) or (b) of the Rule above cited, hence the allegation that she has been subjected to
custodial investigation is far from being accurate. The methamphetamine hydrochloride seized from her during
the routine frisk at the airport was acquired legitimately pursuant to airport security procedures. Persons may
lose the protection of the search and seizure clause by exposure of their persons or property to the public in
a manner reflecting a lack of subjective expectation of privacy, which expectation society is prepared to
recognize as reasonable. Such recognition is implicit in airport security procedures. With increased concern
over airplane hijacking and terrorism has come increased security at the nation's airports. Passengers

attempting to board an aircraft routinely pass through metal detectors; their carry-on baggage as well as
checked luggage are routinely subjected to x-ray scans. Should these procedures suggest the presence of
suspicious objects, physical searches are conducted to determine what the objects are. There is little question
that such searches are reasonable, given their minimal intrusiveness, the gravity of the safety interests
involved, and the reduced privacy expectations associated with airline travel. Indeed, travelers are often
notified through airport public address systems, signs, and notices in their airline tickets that they are
subject to search and, if any prohibited materials or substances are found, such would be subject to seizure.
These announcements place passengers on notice that ordinary constitutional protections against warrantless
searches and seizures do not apply to routine airport procedures. The packs of methamphetamine hydrochloride
having thus been obtained through a valid warrantless search, they are admissible in evidence against Johnson.
Corollarily, her subsequent arrest, although likewise without warrant, was justified since it was effected upon
the discovery and recovery of "shabu" in her person in flagrante delicto.

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MIKAEL MALMSTEDT

G.R. No. 91107 June 19, 1991

Facts:
Captain Alen Vasco, the commanding officer of the first regional command (NARCOM) stationed at camp
Dangwa, ordered his men to set up a temporary checkpoint for the purpose of checking all vehicles coming from
the Cordillera Region. The order to establish a checkpoint was prompted by persistent reports that vehicles
coming from Sagada were transporting marijuana and other prohibited drugs. And an information also was received
about a Caucasian coming from Sagada had in his possession prohibited drugs.
In the afternoon the bus where accused was riding stopped. Sgt. Fider and CIC Galutan boarded the bus and
announced that they were members of the NARCOM and that they would conduct an inspection. During the inspection
CIC Galutan noticed a bulge on accused waist. Suspecting the bulge on accused waist to be a gun, the officer
asked for accuseds passport and other identification papers. When accused failed to comply, the officer
required him to bring out whatever it was that was bulging o his waist. And it turned out to be a pouched bag
and when accused opened the same bag the officer noticed four suspicious looking objects wrapped in brown
packing tape. It contained hashish, a derivative of marijuana.
Thereafter, the accused was invited outside the bus for questioning. But before he alighted from the bus
accused stopped to get two travelling bags. The officer inspects the bag. It was only after the officers had
opened the bags that the accused finally presented his passport. The two bags contained a stuffed toy each,
upon inspection the stuff toy contained also hashish.
Issue: Whether or not there is a violation of the constitutional right against unreasonable search and seizure
Ruling: The Supreme Court held that under Section 5 Rule 113 of the Rules of Court provides:
Arrest without warrant; when lawful a peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person:
a) When, in the 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 temporary confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred
from one confinement to another
Accused was searched and arrested while transporting prohibited drugs. 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 provision of law, which allows a warrantless search incident to a
lawful arrest.
Probable cause has been defined as such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonable, discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and that the object sought in connection with the
offense are in the placed sought to be searched.
When NARCOM received the information that a Caucasian travelling from Sagada to Baguio City was carrying with
him a prohibited drug, there was no time to obtain a search warrant.

THE CHECKPOINTS CASE : VALMONTE V. DE VILLA, G.R. NO. 83988 SEPTEMBER 29, 1989 (173 SCRA 211)
I.

THE FACTS

On 20 January 1987, the National Capital Region District Command (NCRDC) was activated pursuant to Letter of
Instruction 02/87 of the Philippine General Headquarters, AFP, with the mission of conducting security
operations within its area of responsibility and peripheral areas, for the purpose of establishing an effective
territorial defense, maintaining peace and order, and providing an atmosphere conducive to the social, economic
and political development of the National Capital Region. As part of its duty to maintain peace and order, the
NCRDC installed checkpoints in various parts of Valenzuela, Metro Manila.
Petitioners Atty. Ricardo Valmonte, who is a resident of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, and the Union of Lawyers and
Advocates For Peoples Rights (ULAP) sought the declaration of checkpoints in Valenzuela, Metro Manila and
elsewhere as unconstitutional. In the alternative, they prayed that respondents Renato De Villa and the
National Capital Region District Command (NCRDC) be directed to formulate guidelines in the implementation of
checkpoints for the protection of the people. Petitioners contended that the checkpoints gave the respondents
blanket authority to make searches and seizures without search warrant or court order in violation of the
Constitution.
II.

THE ISSUE

Do the military and police checkpoints violate the right of the people against unreasonable search and
seizures?
III.

THE RULING

[The Court, voting 13-2, DISMISSED the petition.]

NO, military and police checkpoints DO NOT violate the right of the people against unreasonable search and
seizures.
xxx. 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.
Where, for example, the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle which is parked on the
public fair grounds, or simply looks into a vehicle, or flashes a light therein, these do not constitute
unreasonable search.
The setting up of the questioned checkpoints in Valenzuela (and probably in other areas) may be considered as a
security measure to enable the NCRDC to pursue its mission of establishing effective territorial defense and
maintaining peace and order for the benefit of the public. Checkpoints may also be regarded as measures to
thwart plots to destabilize the government, in the interest of public security. In this connection, the Court
may take judicial notice of the shift to urban centers and their suburbs of the insurgency movement, so clearly
reflected in the increased killings in cities of police and military men by NPA sparrow units, not to mention
the abundance of unlicensed firearms and the alarming rise in lawlessness and violence in such urban centers,
not all of which are reported in media, most likely brought about by deteriorating economic conditions which
all sum up to what one can rightly consider, at the very least, as abnormal times. Between the inherent right
of the state to protect its existence and promote public welfare and an individual's right against a
warrantless search which is however reasonably conducted, the former should prevail.
True, the manning of checkpoints by the military is susceptible of abuse by the men in uniform, in the same
manner that all governmental power is susceptible of abuse. But, at the cost of occasional inconvenience,
discomfort and even irritation to the citizen, the checkpoints during these abnormal times, when conducted
within reasonable limits, are part of the price we pay for an orderly society and a peaceful community.

VALMONTE VS. DE VILLA

Facts: On 20 January 1987, the National Capital Region District Command (NCRDC) was activated pursuant to
Letter of Instruction 02/87 of the Philippine General Headquarters, AFP, with the mission of conducting
security operations within its area of responsibility and peripheral areas, for the purpose of establishing an
effective territorial defense, maintaining peace and order, and providing an atmosphere conducive to the
social, economic and political development of the National Capital Region.
As part of its duty to maintain
peace and order, the NCRDC installed checkpoints in various parts of Valenzuela, Metro Manila. Petitioners aver
that, because of the installation of said checkpoints, the residents of Valenzuela are worried of being
harassed and of their safety being placed at the arbitrary, capricious and whimsical disposition of the
military manning the checkpoints, considering that their cars and vehicles are being subjected to regular
searches and check-ups, especially at night or at dawn, without the benefit of a search warrant and/or court
order. Their alleged fear for their safety increased when, at dawn of 9 July 1988, Benjamin Parpon, a supply
officer of the Municipality of Valenzuela, Bulacan, was gunned down allegedly in cold blood by the members of

the NCRDC manning the checkpoint along McArthur Highway at Malinta, Valenzuela, for ignoring and/or refusing to
submit himself to the checkpoint and for continuing to speed off inspire of warning shots fired in the air.
Issue: WON the installation of checkpoints violates the right of the people against unreasonable searches and
seizures
Held:
Petitioner's concern for their safety and apprehension at being harassed by the military manning the
checkpoints are not sufficient grounds to declare the checkpoints per se, illegal. No proof has been presented
before the Court to show that, in the course of their routine checks, the military, indeed, committed specific
violations of petitioners'' rights against unlawful search and seizure of other rights. The constitutional
right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right invocable only by those whose rights have
been infringed, or threatened to be infringed. Not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Those which are
reasonable are not forbidden. The setting up of the questioned checkpoints may be considered as a security
measure to enable the NCRDC to pursue its mission of establishing effective territorial defense and maintaining
peace and order for the benefit of the public. Checkpoints may not also be regarded as measures to thwart plots
to destabilize the govt, in the interest of public security. Between the inherent right of the state to protect
its existence and promote public welfare and an individuals right against a warrantless search w/c is,
however, reasonably conducted, the former should prevail. True, the manning of checkpoints by the military is
susceptible of abuse by the military in the same manner that all governmental power is susceptible of abuse.
But, at the cost of occasional inconvenience, discomfort and even irritation to the citizen, the checkpoints
during these abnormal times, when conducted w/in reasonable limits, are part of the price we pay for an orderly
society and a peaceful community.

SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY (SJS) v. DANGEROUS DRUGS BOARD and PHILIPPINE DRUG ENFORCEMENTAGENCY (GRs. 157870,
158633 and 161658)
NOTE: This is consolidated with Laserna vs Dangerous Drugs Board (G.R. No. 158633) and Pimentel vs COMELEC
(G.R. No. 161658)
In 2002, Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002was implemented. Section 36
thereof requires mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office, students of secondary and tertiary
schools, officers and employees of public and private offices, and persons charged before the prosecutors
office with certain offenses.
In December 2003, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 6486, prescribing the rules and regulations on the mandatory
drug testing of candidates for public office in connection with the May 10, 2004 synchronized national and
local elections. Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., a senator and a candidate for re-election in the May elections, filed
a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65. In it, he seeks (1) to nullify Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165
and COMELEC Resolution No. 6486 dated December 23, 2003 for being unconstitutional in that they impose a
qualification for candidates for senators in addition to those already provided for in the 1987 Constitution;
and (2) to enjoin the COMELEC from implementing Resolution No. 6486.
According to Pimentel, the Constitution only prescribes a maximum of five (5) qualifications for one to be a
candidate for, elected to, and be a member of the Senate. He says that both the Congress and COMELEC, by
requiring, via RA 9165 and Resolution No. 6486, a senatorial aspirant, among other candidates, to undergo a
mandatory drug test, create an additional qualification that all candidates for senator must first be certified
as drug free. He adds that there is no provision in the Constitution authorizing the Congress or COMELEC to
expand the qualification requirements of candidates for senator.
ISSUE: Whether or not Sec 36 of RA 9165 and Resolution 6486 are constitutional.
HELD: No. Pimentels contention is valid. Accordingly, Sec. 36 of RA 9165 is unconstitutional. It is basic
that if a law or an administrative rule violates any norm of the Constitution, that issuance is null and void
and has no effect. The Constitution is the basic law to which all laws must conform; no act shall be valid if
it conflicts with the Constitution. In the discharge of their defined functions, the three departments of
government have no choice but to yield obedience to the commands of the Constitution.
Whatever limits it
imposes must be observed.
The provision [n]o person elected to any public office shall enter upon the duties of his office until he has
undergone mandatory drug test is not tenable as it enlarges the qualifications. COMELEC cannot, in the guise
of enforcing and administering election laws or promulgating rules and regulations to implement Sec. 36,
validly impose qualifications on candidates for senator in addition to what the Constitution prescribes. If
Congress cannot require a candidate for senator to meet such additional qualification, the COMELEC, to be sure,
is also without such power. The right of a citizen in the democratic process of election should not be defeated
by unwarranted impositions of requirement not otherwise specified in the Constitution.

POLLO V. CONSTANTINO-DAVID, G.R. NO. 181881, 18 OCTOBER 2011

Facts
Respondent CSC Chair Constantino-David received an anonymous letter complaint alleging of an anomaly taking
place in the Regional Office of the CSC. The respondent then formed a team and issued a memo directing the team
to back up all the files in the computers found in the Mamamayan Muna (PALD) and Legal divisions.
Several diskettes containing the back-up files sourced from the hard disk of PALD and LSD computers were turned
over to Chairperson David. The contents of the diskettes were examined by the CSCs Office for Legal Affairs
(OLA). It was found that most of the files in the 17 diskettes containing files copied from the computer
assigned to and being used by the petitioner, numbering about 40 to 42 documents, were draft pleadings or
lettersin connection with administrative cases in the CSC and other tribunals. On the basis of this finding,
Chairperson David issued the Show-Cause Order, requiring the petitioner, who had gone on extended leave, to
submit his explanation or counter-affidavit within five days from notice.
In his Comment, petitioner denied the accusations against him and accused the CSC Officials of fishing
expedition when they unlawfully copied and printed personal files in his computer.
He was charged of violating R.A. No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and
Employees). He assailed the formal charge and filed an Omnibus Motion ((For Reconsideration, to Dismiss and/or
to Defer) assailing the formal charge as without basis having proceeded from an illegal search which is beyond
the authority of the CSC Chairman, such power pertaining solely to the court.
The CSC denied the omnibus motion and treated the motion as the petitioners answer to the charge. In view of
the absence of petitioner and his counsel, and upon the motion of the prosecution, petitioner was deemed to
have waived his right to the formal investigation which then proceeded ex parte.
The petitioner was dismissed from service. He filed a petition to the CA which was dismissed by the latter on
the ground that it found no grave abuse of discretion on the part of the respondents. He filed a motion for
reconsideration which was further denied by the appellate court. Hence, this petition.
Issue
WON the search conducted by the CSC on the computer of the petitioner constituted an illegal search and was a
violation of his constitutional right to privacy
Ruling
The search conducted on his office computer and the copying of his personal files was lawful and did not
violate his constitutional right.
Ratio Decidendi
In this case, the Court had the chance to present the cases illustrative of the issue raised by the petitioner.
Katz v. United States 389 U.S. 437 (1967), the US Supreme Court held that the act of FBI agents in
electronically recording a conversation made by petitioner in an enclosed public telephone booth violated his
right to privacy and constituted a search and seizure.
Because the petitioner had a reasonable expectation
of privacy in using the enclosed booth to make a personal telephone call, the protection of the Fourth
Amendment extends to such area. Moreso, the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan noted that the existence
of privacy right under prior decisions involved a two-fold requirement: first, that a person has exhibited an
actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to
recognize as reasonable (objective).
Mancusi v. DeForte 392 U.S. 364, 88 S.Ct. 2120, 20 L.Ed2d 1154 (1968),thus recognized that employees may have
a reasonable expectation of privacy against intrusions by police.
OConnor v. Ortega 480 U.S. 709 (1987), the Court categorically declared that [i]ndividuals do not lose Fourth
Amendment rights merely because they work for the government instead of a private employer. In OConnor the
Court recognized that special needs authorize warrantless searches involving public employees for workrelated reasons. The Court thus laid down a balancing test under which government interests are weighed against
the employees reasonable expectation of privacy. This reasonableness test implicates neither probable cause
nor the warrant requirement, which are related to law enforcement.

Social Justice Society (SJS) v. Dangerous Drugs Board G.R. Nos. 157870, 158633 and 161658, November 3, 2008,
570 SCRA 410, 427, (citing Ople v. Torres, G.R. No. 127685, July 23, 1998, 293 SCRA 141, 169),recognized the
fact that there may be such legitimate intrusion of privacy in the workplace.
The Court ruled that the petitioner did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in his office and computer
files.
As to the second point of inquiry, the Court answered in the affirmative. The search authorized by the CSC
Chair, the copying of the contents of the hard drive on petitioners computer reasonable in its inception and
scope.
The Court noted that unlike in the case of Anonymous Letter-Complaint against Atty. Miguel Morales, Clerk of
Court, Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila A.M. Nos. P-08-2519 and P-08-2520, November 19, 2008, 571 SCRA 361,
the case at bar involves the computer from which the personal files of the petitioner were retrieved is a
government-issued computer, hence government property the use of which the CSC has absolute right to regulate
and monitor.
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 a judge
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.
CASE DOCTRINES
by: C D R
A. When is a search a reasonable search?
Valmonte v. De Villa checkpoints Section 2 is a personal right invocable only by those whose rights have
been infringed or threatened to be infringed; reasonableness is determined by a fixed formula but from the
circumstances of the case; not all searches and seizures are not allowed; between the inherent right of the
state to protect its existence and promote public welfare and an individual; right
against warrantless search which was reasonably conductedm the former should prevail
B. Requisites of a Valid Warrant
Alvarez v. CFI of Tayabas definition of a search warrant an order in writing, issued in the name of the
People of the Philippine Islands, signed by a judge or justice of peace and directed to a peace officer
commanding him to search for personal property and bring it before court, OATH - any form of
attestation that a party signifies that he is bound by conscience to perform an act faithfully or truthfully
People v. CA the general rule is that search warrants must be served during the daytime (protect the public
from the abrasiveness of official intrusions). Exception: a search at any reasonable hour
of day or night may be made when the application asserts that the property in on the person or place ordered to
be searched. Absence of abuse of discretion, a search conducted at night where so allowed is not improper
People v. Veloso parliamentary club - JOHN DOE WARRANTS Valid IF the best description possible is given in
the arrest warrant it must be sufficient to indicate clearly on whom it is to be served by stating his
occupation, personal appearance or peculiarities, place of residence or other circumstances which he may be
identified
Microsoft v. Maxicorp software probable cause such reasons, supported by facts and circumstances as will
warrant a cautious man in the belief that his action and the means taken in prosecuting it are
legally just and proper; OATH must refer to the truth of the facts WITHIN THE PERSONAL KNOLEDGE OF THE
PETITIONER OR HIS WITNESSES; probable cause deals with probability and not absolute certainty
Burgos Sr. v. Chief of Staff, AFP Metropolitan Mail and We Forum typographical error in specifying the
address to be searched not sufficient to invalidate search warrant where the address intended appears on the
face of the warrant; probable cause such facts or circumstances which would lead a
reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and the objects sought in connection with
the offense are in the place sought to be searched
People v. CA Abigails Variety Store VOID warrant the claim that the place actually searched although
not the one specified in the warrant is exactly what they had in view when they applied for the warrant is

unacceptable. What is material in determining the validity of the warrant is the place stated in the warrant,
not the one they had in their thoughts; particularization of description may properly be done only by the judge
and only in the warrant itself
Corro v. Lising Philippine Times conclusions of law of military officers will not satisfy probable cause
requirement for issuance of search warrants
Soliven v. Makasiar The judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. He
shall: 1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the
fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest OR 2) if
on the basis thereof, he does not find probable cause, he may disregard the fiscals report and
require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion of the
existence of probable cause
Lim Sr. v. Felix certification by the fiscal of the existence of probable cause does not bind the judge.
Preliminary inquiry determines probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant (prosecutor);
preliminary examination (judge) - investigation for the determination of a probable cause for the issuance of a
warrant of arrest; preliminary investigation
proper ascertains whether the offender
should be held for trial or be released.
Yao Sr. v. People GASUL and SHELLANE v. MASAGANA - examination of complainant and witnesses must be probing
and exhaustive not merely routinary, general, peripheral, perfunctory or pro forma; law
does not require that the thihgs to be seized should be described in very precise and minute details.
C. Warrantless Searches and Seizures
Nolasco v. Pano articles seized by void warrants should be retuned to its owners Papa v. Mago Customs
Search search warrant not necessary except if the place to be searched is a dwelling or house Tariff and
Customs Code
People v. CFI of Rizal search of moving vehicle Carroll doctrine search of moving vehicles or automobiles
no search warrant needed
People. V. Lo Ho Wing - exception to the issuance of search warrant: 1) search incidental to a lawful arrest;
2) search of moving vehicle; 3) seizure of evidence in plain view
People v. Evaristo evidence
needed; Malacat v. CA valid
counsel; search incidental to
to conduct stop and frisk but

in plain view Harris v. Coolidge, Coolidge v. New Hampshire no search warrant

waiver must be made in writing and in the presence of
a lawful arrest v. stop and frisk Terry Case probable cause is not required
mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate it. A genuine reason must exist.

People v. De Gracia Eurocar Sales Office crime was in fact being committed search incidental to lawful
arrest valid
People v. Johnson inspection at airports Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure clause
by exposure of their persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting lack of subjective
expectation of privacy
David v. Macapagal-Arroyo PP 1017 case doctrines same as the ones above (related topics: freedom of
expression; freedom to peaceably assemble)
People v. Nuevas illegal possession of marijuana - in cases of searches incidental to a lawful arrest, the
arrest must precede the search; warrantless search, when valid: 1) incidental to lawful arrest; 2) evidence in
plain view [a) valid prior intrusion, police are legally present in the pursuit of their
official duties, b) evidence was inadvertently discovered, c) evidence immediately apparent, d) plain view
justified mere seizure with =out further search]; 3) search of moving vehicle; 4) consented warrantless search;
5) customs search; 6) stop and frisk; 7) exigent and emergency circumstances
D. Searches and seizures of whatever nature for any purpose
E. Warrantless Arrests

Umil v. Ramos subversion a continuing offense - arrest without a warrant is justified if the person arrested
in caught in flagrante delicto
People v. Aminudin - M/V Wilcon; marijuana not caught in flagrante delicto; search was unreasonable; evidence
inadmissible
Harvey v. Defensor-Santiago pedophiles the rights granted in Section 2 are available to all persons
including aliens, whether accused of a crime or not People v. Mengote suspicious man outside a person may
not be stopped and frisked in broad daylight on a bust street on a mere unexplained suspicion
Posadas v. Ombudsan Sigma Rho v. Scintilla Juris Arrest made without a valid warrant: Rule 113, Section 5
of the Rules of Court when in the presence of a police officer or a private individual: 1) the person
arrested has committed, is actually committing, or attempting to commit an offense; 2) when an offense has
actually been committed, and he has personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the
person to be arrested commited it; 3) when the person arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or place where his is serving final or temporary judgment (pending), escaped while being
transferred
Ladlad v. Velasco imprisoned by PP 1017; rebellion/sedition doctrine same as above and People v. De Gracia