IV.
Searches and Seizures that the NBI agents knew the contents of the sealed boxes before they were opened.
A. General Considerations
(2) UNILAB, INC. vs. ERNESTO ISIP and/or SHALIMAR PHILIPPINES
G.R. No. 163858
June 28, 2005
FACTS:
UNILAB hired a private investigator to investigate a place purported to be
manufacturing fake UNILAB products, especially Revicon multivitamins. The agent
took some photographs where the clandestine manufacturing operation was taking
place. UNILAB then sought the help of the NBI, which thereafter filed an application
for the issuance of search warrant in the RTC of Manila. After finding probable cause,
the court issued a search warrant directing the police to seize “finished or unfinished
products of UNILAB, particularly REVICON multivitamins.” No fake Revicon was
however found; instead, sealed boxes where seized, which, when opened contained
60 ml bottles of Disudrin and 200mg tablets of Inoflox, both were brands used by
UNILAB. NBI prayed that some of the sized items be turned over to the custody of
the Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD) for examination. The court granted the
motion. The respondents then filed a motion to quash the search warrant or to
suppress evidence, alleging that the seized items are considered to be fruit of a
poisonous tree, and therefore inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding, which
the petitioners opposed alleging that the boxes of Disudrin and Inoflox were seized
under the plain view doctrine. The court, however, granted the motion of the
respondents.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the seizure of the sealed boxes which, when opened, contained
Disudrin syrup and Inoflox, were valid under the plain view doctrine.
HELD:
It is true that things not described in the warrant may be seized under the plain view
doctrine. However, seized things not described in the warrant cannot be presumed as
plain view. The State must adduce evidence to prove that the elements for the
doctrine to apply are present, namely: (a) the executing law enforcement officer has a
prior justification for an initial intrusion or otherwise properly in a position from
which he can view a particular order; (b) the officer must discover incriminating
evidence inadvertently; and (c) it must be immediately apparent to the police that the
items they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband, or otherwise subject to
seizure It was thus incumbent on the NBI and the petitioner to prove that the items
were seized on plain view. It is not enough that the sealed boxes were in the plain
view of the NBI agents. However, the NBI failed to present any of officers who were
present when the warrant was enforced to prove that the the sealed boxes was
discovered inadvertently, and that such boxes and their contents were incriminating
and immediately apparent. It must be stressed that only the enforcing officers had
personal knowledge whether the sealed boxes and their contents thereof were
incriminating and that they were immediately apparent. There is even no showing
In sum then, the petitioner and the NBI failed to prove that the plain view doctrine
applies to the seized items.
(3) Stonehill vs Diokno
Facts:
Respondents issued, on different dates, 42 search warrants against petitioners
personally, and/or corporations for which they are officers directing peace officers to
search the persons of petitioners and premises of their offices, warehouses and/or
residences to search for personal properties “books of accounts, financial records,
vouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, journals, portfolios, credit journals,
typewriters, and other documents showing all business transactions including
disbursement receipts, balance sheets and profit and loss statements and
Bobbins(cigarettes)” as the subject of the offense for violations of Central Bank Act,
Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue Code, and Revised Penal Code.
Upon effecting the search in the offices of the aforementioned corporations and on
the respective residences of the petitioners, there seized documents, papers, money
and other records. Petitioners then were subjected to deportation proceedings and
were constrained to question the legality of the searches and seizures as well as the
admissibility of those seized as evidence against them.
On March 20, 1962, the SC issued a writ of preliminary injunction and partially lifted
the same on June 29, 1962 with respect to some documents and papers.
Held:
a. Search warrants issued were violative of the Constitution and the Rules,
thus, illegal or being general warrants. There is no probable cause and
warrant did not particularly specify the things to be seized. The purpose of
the requirement is to avoid placing the sanctity of the domicile and the
privacy of communication and correspondence at the mercy of the whims,
caprice or passion of peace officers.
b. Document seized from an illegal search warrant is not admissible in court as
a fruit of a poisonous tee. However, they could not be returned, except if
warranted by the circumstances.
 c. Petitioners were not the proper party to question the validity and return of
those taken from the corporations for which they acted as officers as they are
treated as personality different from that of the corporation.
(4) PICOP v. Asuncion, 307 SCRA 253) (1999)
FACTS: On January 25, 1995, Police Chief Inspector Napoleon B. Pascua applied for
a search warrant before the RTC of Quezon City, stating: 1. That the management of
Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines, located at PICOP compound, is in
possession or ha[s] in [its] control high powered firearms, ammunitions, explosives,
which are the subject of the offense, or used or intended to be used in committing the
offense, and which . . . are [being kept] and conceal[ed] in the premises described; 2.
That a Search Warrant should be issued to enable any agent of the law to take
possession and bring to the described properties. After propounding several
questions to Bacolod, Judge Maximiano C. Asuncion issued the contested search
warrant. On February 4, 1995, the police enforced the search warrant at the PICOP
compound and seized a number of firearms and explosives. Believing that the
warrant was invalid and the search unreasonable, the petitioners filed a “Motion to
Quash” before the trial court. Subsequently, they also filed a “Supplemental Pleading
to the Motion to Quash” and a “Motion to SuppressEvidence.” On March 23, 1995,
the RTC issued the first contested Order which denied petitioners’ motions. On
August 3, 1995, the trial court rendered its second contested Order denying
petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration.
ISSUE: WON the search warrant issued was valid
HELD:
The requisites of a valid search warrant are: (1) probable cause is present; (2) such
presence is determined personally by the judge; (3) the complainant and the
witnesses he or she may produce are personally examined by the judge, in writing
and under oath or affirmation; (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on facts
personally known to them; and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be
searched and the things to be seized. In the present case, the search warrant is invalid
because (1) the trial court failed to examine personally the complainant and the other
deponents; (2) SPO3 Cicero Bacolod, who appeared during the hearing for the
issuance of the search warrant, had no personal knowledge that petitioners were not
licensed to possess the subject firearms; and (3)the place to be searched was not
described with particularity.
(5) PEOPLE OF THE PHILLIPINES v. BENNY GO
411 SCRA 81 (2003), THIRD DIVISION (Carpio Morales, J.)
The search and seizure of articles must be limited to those which are particularly
described in the search warrant.
FACTS: A raiding team armed with a warrant entered the home of appelant Benny
Go in search of evidence for the violation of Republic Act 6425 (Dangerous Drugs
Act), otherwise know as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 . Upon their entry, they met Jack Go,
son of the Go and restrained him. As the former was the only one present at the time
they then called on two baranggay kagawads to act as witnesses on the said search.
They then siezed properties and objects even those which were not included in the
warrant. When they were almost finished with their search Go arrived and
immediately together with the two witnesses was made to sign the inventory reciept.
Based on the evidence taken from the search Go was charged for violation of R.A.
6425. Upon hearing, testimonies as well as evidences were presented by the
prosecution against Go. However, the two witnesses questioned the validity of some
of the evidence presented such as the inventory receipt as well as the illegal drugs
said to have been seized from the search.
The Regional Trial Court of Manila convicted Go for violation of the offense cahrged.
On appeal, Go assails the decision of the RTC as well the validity of the search
performed by the raiding team and the admissibility of the evidence taken therefrom.
Go also asks for the return of the properties seized that were not included in the
search warrant.
ISSUE: Whether or not the properties not included in the search warrant may be
returned to Go
HELD: It bears reiterating that the purpose of the constitutional requirement that the
articles to be seized be particularly described in the warrant is to limit the things to be
seized to those, and only those, particularly described in the search warrant - to leave
the officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles they should seize. At
the same time, the raiding team characterized the seizure of the assorted documents,
passports, bankbooks, checks, check writer, typewriter, dry seals and stamp pads as
―seizure of evidence in plain view. Under the 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.
To be sure, the policemen also filed a complaint against Go for alleged possession of
instruments or implements intended for the commission of falsification under
paragraph 2 of Article 176 of the Revised Penal Code on the basis of dry seals and
rubber stamps also found in appellant‘s residence.
suspects who formerly lived at the home. Upon the grant of a writ of certiorari, the
deputies appealed the judgment of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
which held that the conduct alleged by the residents was unreasonable.
CASE FACTS
The residents recently purchased the home and asserted that, although they were not
the same race as the suspects being sought under the warrant, the deputies ordered
the residents to get out of their bed and remain unclothed until the deputies
determined that the suspects were not present.
DISCUSSION

The counterfeit nature of the seals and stamps was in fact not established until after
they had been turned over to the Chinese embassy and Bureau of Immigration and  The U.S. Supreme Court held that the execution of the properly issued
Deportation for verification. It is, therefore, incredible that SPO1 Fernandez could warrant by the deputies was not unreasonable.
make such determination from a ―plain view‖ of the items from his vantage point in
 Regardless of the difference in race, when the residents were ordered from
their bed the deputies had no way of knowing whether the suspects were
the sala.
elsewhere in the home.
 Further, one of the suspects was reported to be armed, and the deputies
In sum, the circumstances attendant to the case at bar do not warrant the application were justified in ordering the residents from the bed, and refusing to allow
of the ―plain view‖ doctrine to justify the seizure and retention of the questioned them to dress for a brief period, in order to insure that no weapons were
seized items. The things belonging to appellant not specifically mentioned in the concealed in the bedding or elsewhere.
warrants, like those not particularly described, must thus be ordered returned to
him.
CONCLUSION
The judgment holding that the search was unreasonable was reversed, and the case
Be that as it may, considering that the two (2) dry seals and eight (8) of the rubber
was remanded for further proceedings. - See more at:
stamps have been certified to be counterfeit by the Bureau of Immigration and
http://www.lawschoolcasebriefs.net/2013/11/los-angeles-county-california-v-
Deportation, they may not be returned and are hereby declared confiscated in favor
rettele.html#sthash.kNDeGthN.dpuf
of the State to be disposed of according to law.

Moreover, the various bankbooks and passports not belonging to appellant may not
be ordered returned in the instant proceedings. The legality of a seizure can be
contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby, and the
objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed
of by third parties.

(7) Los Angeles County, California v. Rettele case brief summary

127 S. Ct. 1989 (2007)

CASE SYNOPSIS
Respondent residents of a home brought an action against petitioners, sheriff's
deputies, alleging that the deputies unreasonably executed a search warrant for