as a security measure to enable the NCRDC to pursue its

Valmonte v. De Villa, G.R. No. 83988 September 29, 1989 mission of establishing effective territorial defense and
(173 SCRA 211) – CHECKPOINT CASE maintaining peace and order for the benefit of the public.
Checkpoints may also be regarded as measures to thwart
PADILLA, J.: plots to destabilize the government, in the interest of public
security.
FACTS:
In this connection, the Court may take judicial notice
 On 20 January 1987, the National Capital Region of the shift to urban centers and their suburbs of the
District Command (NCRDC) was activated pursuant insurgency movement, so clearly reflected in the increased
to Letter of Instruction 02/87 of the Philippine General killings in cities of police and military men by NPA “sparrow
Headquarters, AFP, with the mission of conducting units,” not to mention the abundance of unlicensed firearms
security operations within its area of responsibility and the alarming rise in lawlessness and violence in such
and peripheral areas, for the purpose of establishing urban centers, not all of which are reported in media, most
an effective territorial defense, maintaining peace and likely brought about by deteriorating economic conditions –
order, and providing an atmosphere conducive to the which all sum up to what one can rightly consider, at the very
social, economic and political development of the least, as abnormal times. Between the inherent right of the
National Capital Region.  state to protect its existence and promote public welfare
 As part of its duty to maintain peace and order, the and an individual's right against a warrantless search
NCRDC installed checkpoints in various parts of which is however reasonably conducted, the former
Valenzuela, Metro Manila.  should prevail.
 Petitioners Atty. Ricardo Valmonte, who is a resident
of Valenzuela, Metro Manila, and the Union of True, the manning of checkpoints by the military is
Lawyers and Advocates For People’s Rights (ULAP) susceptible of abuse by the men in uniform, in the same
sought the declaration of checkpoints in Valenzuela, manner that all governmental power is susceptible of abuse.
Metro Manila and elsewhere as unconstitutional. In But, at the cost of occasional inconvenience, discomfort
the alternative, they prayed that respondents Renato and even irritation to the citizen, the checkpoints during
De Villa and the National Capital Region District these abnormal times, when conducted within reasonable
Command (NCRDC) be directed to formulate limits, are part of the price we pay for an orderly society
guidelines in the implementation of checkpoints for and a peaceful community.
the protection of the people.
 Petitioners contended that the checkpoints gave the Finally, on 17 July 1988, military and police checkpoints in
respondents blanket authority to make searches and Metro Manila were temporarily lifted and a review and
seizures without search warrant or court order in refinement of the rules in the conduct of the police and
violation of the Constitution. military manning the checkpoints was ordered by the National
Capital Regional Command Chief and the Metropolitan Police
ISSUE: Director. 
WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED.
Do the military and police checkpoints violate the right
of the people against unreasonable search and seizures? DISSENTING OPINION:

HELD: Cruz - The bland declaration that individual rights must yield
to the demands of national security ignores the fact that the
[The Court, voting 13-2, DISMISSED the petition.] Bill of Rights was intended precisely to limit the authority of
the State even if asserted on the ground of national security.
NO,  military and police checkpoints DO NOT What is worse is that the searches and seizures are
violate the right of the people against unreasonable peremptorily pronounced to be reasonable even without proof
search and seizures. of probable cause and much less the required warrant.

xxx. Not all searches and seizures are prohibited. Sarmiento - the absence alone of a search warrant, as I
Those which are reasonable are not forbidden. A have averred, makes checkpoint searches unreasonable, and
reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed by itself, subject to constitutional challenges. (Supra.) As it is,
formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of "checkpoints", have become "search warrants" unto
each case. themselves a roving one at that.

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

1 CONSTI LAW 2 ARREST,SEARCH,SEIZURE DIGEST RHEYNE ROBLEDO

Guanzon vs de Villa 181 SCRA 623 – ZONING/ HUMAN ISSUE: 
RIGHTS CASE
Whether the saturation drive committed consisted of
GUTIERREZ, JR., J.: violation of human rights?
HELD:
FACTS: NO.

 This is a petition for prohibition with preliminary Not one of the several thousand persons treated in the illegal
injunction to prohibit the military and police and inhuman manner described by the petitioners appears as
officers represented by public respondents from a petitioner or has come before a trial court to present the
conducting "Areal Target Zonings" or "Saturation kind of evidence admissible in courts of justice.
Drives" in Metro Manila.
 The 41 petitioners alleged that the 12 "saturation None of those arrested has apparently been charged and
drive" or "aerial target zoning" that were conducted in none of those affected has apparently complained.
their place (Tondo Manila) were unconstitutional.
 They alleged that the following were committed: Where there is large scale mutiny or actual rebellion, the
1. there is no specific target house to police or military may go in force to the combat areas,
besearch and that there is no search warrant or enter affected residences or buildings, round up
warrant of arrest served. Most of the policemen are in suspected rebels and otherwise quell the mutiny or
their civilian clothes and without nameplates or rebellion without having to secure search warrants and
identification cards. without violating the Bill of Rights.
2. The residents were rudely rouse from their sleep
by banging on the walls and windows of their houses. If our policy makers sustain the contention of the military and
The residents were at the point of high-powered guns the police that occasional saturation drives are essential to
and herded like cows. maintain the stability of government and to insure peace and
3. Men were ordered to strip down to their briefs for order, clear policy guidelines on the behavior of soldiers and
the police to examine their tattoo marks. The policemen must not only be evolved, they should also be
residents complained that their homes were enforced. A method of pinpointing human rights abuses and
ransacked, tossing their belongings and destroying identifying violators is necessary.
their valuables.
4. Raiders force their way and search the houses In the meantime and in the face of a prima facie showing that
without civilian witnesses. some abuses were probably committed and could be
5. Raiders ransack their homes and damaged due to committed during future police actions, we have to temporarily
illegal effort to fish for incriminating evidences. restrain the alleged banging on walls, the kicking in of doors,
6. Some of their money and valuables had the herding of half-naked men to assembly areas for
disappeared after the operation. examination of tattoo marks, the violation of residences even
7. The residents who respond to illegal intrusions if these are humble shanties of squatters, and the other
were arrested without warrant alleged acts which are shocking to the conscience.
8.Arrested persons are released after the expiration
of the period for legal detention WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby REMANDED to the
9. Raiders almost blandish their weapons and point Regional Trial Courts of Manila, Malabon, and Pasay City
them at the residents. where the petitioners may present evidence supporting their
10.There are also reported incidents of maulings, allegations and where specific erring parties may be
spot-beatings and maltreatment. pinpointed and prosecuted.
11. Those who were detained also suffered mental
and physical torture to extract confessions and In the meantime, the acts violative of human rights
tactical information. alleged by the petitioners as committed during the police
 The respondents said that such accusations were all actions are ENJOINED until such time as permanent rules
lies. Respondents contends that the Constitution grants to to govern such actions are promulgated.
government the power to seek and cripple subversive
movements for the maintenance of peace in the state. DISSENTING OPINION:
The aerial target zoning were intended to flush out
subversives and criminal elements coddled by the Cruz - Saturation drives are not among the accepted
communities were the said drives were conducted. They instances when a search or an arrest may be made without
said that they have intelligently and carefully planned warrant.
months ahead for the actual operation and that local and
foreign media joined the operation to witness and record I submit that this Court should instead declare categorically
such event. and emphatically that these saturation drives are violative of
human rights and individual liberty and so should be
stopped immediately.

2 CONSTI LAW 2 ARREST,SEARCH,SEIZURE DIGEST RHEYNE ROBLEDO

AURELIO S. ALVERO vs ARSENIO P. DIZON, et al.,  
G.R. No. L-342      May 4, 1946 – TREASON/ADMISSION The Petitioner consented to the presentation of the seized
OF EVIDENCE CASE documents, as part of the evidence for the prosecution, at the
hearing in his petition for bail and at the trial of the case on
DE JOYA, J.: the merits, without having insisted that the question of the
alleged illegality of the search and seizure of said papers
FACTS: and documents should first have been directly litigated
 This is a petition for certiorari with injunction originally and established by a motion.
filed in this court.
 The petitioner has been accused of treason; that at The purpose of the constitutional provisions against
the hearing on his petition for bail, the prosecution unlawful searches and seizures is to prevent violations of
presented, as part of its evidence, certain documents private security in person and property, and unlawful
which had been allegedly seized by soldiers of the United invasions of the sanctity of the home, by officers of the
States Army, accompanied by Filipino Guerrillas in the law acting under legislative or judicial sanction, and to
petitioner’s house. give remedy against such usurpations when attempted.
 that petitioner immediately objected to the (Adams vs. New York, 192 U. S., 585.) But it does not
presentation of said documents, and called the attention prohibit the Federal Government from taking advantage
of the respondent judges to the fact that he had filed a of unlawful searches made by a private person or under
petition, in which he protested against the procedure of authority of state law. (Weeks vs. United States, 232 U. S.,
the government in the seizure of said documents, and 383; Burdeau vs. McDowell, 256 U. S., 465.)
asked for their return to the petitioner; that the
respondents permitted the prosecution to present said In view of the foregoing, it is evident that the petition
documents as evidence, which were considered, upon for certiorari with injunction, filed in this case, is absolutely
the termination of the presentation of the evidence for without merit, and it is, therefore, hereby denied and
both parties, in denying said petition for bail. dismissed with costs.
 The Petitioner further contends that the seized
documents should be returned as it obtained by means of
force and intimidation or through coercion, those are not CONCURING OPINION:
his personal papers but part of the files of the New
Leader’s Association, which was proven to be an Perfecto- There is no reason, either legal or moral, for
organization created for the purpose of collaborating with depriving an accused of treason of the benefits of
the enemy. constitutional guarantees. Even those convicted of the most
 Lastly, the presentation of the seized documents in heinous crimes remain under the pale of the Constitution, and
the trial is tantamount to compelling him to testify against cannot be punished, including those sentenced to death,
himself, in violation of his constitutional rights. except in accordance with the due process clause of our
fundamental law.
ISSUE:

Whether or not the “seized” documents are legal and should

be admitted as evidence in the trial court?
 
HELD:
No. The petition for Certiorari with Injunction is
absolutely no merit.
 
The right of the officer and men of the United States
Army to arrest the petitioner as a collaborationist
suspect, and to seize his personal papers is
unquestionable. Also, proclamation of General Douglas
McArthur, as Commander in Chief of the United States of
Army, declaring his purpose to remove certain citizens of the
Philippines, who had voluntarily given aid and comfort to the
enemy, in violation of the allegiance.

Important exception to the necessity for a Search

Warrant is the right of search and seizure as an incident
to a lawful arrest. 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
arrested with the crime as its fruits as the means by which it
was committed.

3 CONSTI LAW 2 ARREST,SEARCH,SEIZURE DIGEST RHEYNE ROBLEDO

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANDRE MARTI relationship between the individual and the state.  Its
G.R. No. 81561 January 18, 1991 – DRUG PACKAGE concern is not the relation between individuals, between
CASE a private individual and other individuals. What the Bill
of Rights does is to declare some forbidden zones in the
BIDIN, J.: private sphere inaccessible to any power holder.”

FACTS: The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches

 This is an appeal from a decision * rendered by the and seizures therefore applies as a restraint directed only
Special Criminal Court of Manila (Regional Trial against the government and its agencies tasked with the
Court, Branch XLIX) convicting accused-appellant of enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be invoked
violation of Section 21 (b), Article IV in relation to against the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary and
Section 4, Article 11 and Section 2 (e) (i), Article 1 of unreasonable exercise of power is imposed.
Republic Act 6425, as amended, otherwise known as
the Dangerous Drugs Act. If the search is made upon the request of law enforcers, a
 August 14, 1957, the appellant and his common-law warrant must generally be first secured if it is to pass the test
wife, Sherly Reyes, went to the booth of the “Manila of constitutionality. However, if the search is made at the
Packing and Export Forwarders” carrying Four (4) behest or initiative of the proprietor of a private
wrapped packages. The appellant informed Anita establishment for its own and private purposes, as in the
Reyes that he was sending the packages to a friend case at bar, and without the intervention of police authorities,
in Zurich, Switzerland. Anita Reyes asked if she could the right against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be
examine and inspect the packages. She refused and invoked for only the act of private individual, not the law
assures her that the packages simply contained enforcers, is involved.V In sum, the protection against
books, cigars, and gloves. unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be extended to
 Before the delivery of appellant’s box to the Bureau of acts committed by private individuals so as to bring it within
Customs and Bureau of Posts, Mr. Job Reyes the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government.
(Proprietor), following the standard operating
procedure, opened the boxes for final inspection. A  It was the proprietor of the forwarding agency who made
peculiar odor emitted from the box and that the search/inspection of the packages, not the NBI, as appellant
gloves contain dried leaves. He prepared a letter and would have the Court believe. Said inspection was
reported to the NBI and requesting a laboratory reasonable and a standard operating procedure on the
examinations. The dried marijuana leaves were found part of the proprietor as a precautionary measure before
to have contained inside the cellophane wrappers. delivery of packages to the Bureau of Customs or the
 In the presence of the NBI agents, Job Reyes opened Bureau of Posts. Second, the mere presence of the NBI
the suspicious package and found dried-marijuana agents did not convert the reasonable search the proprietor
leaves inside. A case was filed against Andre Marti in effected into a warrantless search and seizure proscribed by
violation of R.A. 6425 and was found guilty by the the Constitution. Merely to observe and look at that which is
court a quo. in plain sight is not a search.
 Appellant contended that the evidence had been
obtained in violation of constitutional rights against Corolarilly, alleged violations against unreasonable
unreasonable search and seizure and privacy of search and seizure may only be invoked against the
communication. State by an individual unjustly traduced by the exercise
of sovereign authority. To agree with appellant that an act
ISSUE: of a private individual in violation of the Bill of Rights should
also be construed as an act of the State would result in
May an act of a private individual without the serious legal complications and an absurd interpretation of
intervention and participation of the State, and allegedly in the constitution.
violation of appellant’s constitutional rights, be invoked
against the State? WHEREFORE, the judgment of conviction finding
appellant guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
HELD: charged is hereby AFFIRMED.
NO.

The Bill of Rights embodied in the Constitution is not

meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals
finds support in the deliberations of the Constitutional
Commission. Commissioner Bernas in his sponsorship
speech in the Bill of Rights answers the query which he
himself posed, as follows:
“First, the general reflections. The protection of
fundamental liberties in the essence of constitutional
democracy. Protection against whom? Protection
against the state.  The Bill of Rights governs the

4 CONSTI LAW 2 ARREST,SEARCH,SEIZURE DIGEST RHEYNE ROBLEDO

Bache & Co. Inc. et al vs BIR Commissioner Vivencio The search warrant in question was issued for at least four
Ruiz et al GR. L-32409, FEBRUARY 27, 1971 – SEARCH distinct offenses under the Tax Code. As ruled
WARRANT / TAX ASSESMENT CASE in Stonehill “Such is the seriousness of the irregularities
committed in connection with the disputed search warrants,
VILLAMOR, J.: that this Court deemed it fit to amend Section 3 of Rule 122 of
the former Rules of Court that ‘a searchwarrant shall not
FACTS: issue but upon probable cause in connection with one specific
offense.’ Not satisfied with this qualification, the Court added
 This is an original action of certiorari, prohibition and thereto a paragraph, directing that ‘no search warrant shall
mandamus, with prayer for a writ of preliminary issue for more than one specific offense
mandatory and prohibitory injunction. .
 On 24 Feb 1970, Commissioner Vera of Internal 3.  The search warrant does not particularly describe the
Revenue, wrote a letter addressed to J Ruiz things to be seized.
requesting the issuance of a search warrant against The documents, papers and effects sought to be seized are
petitioners for violation of Sec 46(a) of the NIRC, in described in the Search Warrant:
relation to all other pertinent provisions thereof,
particularly Sects 53, 72, 73, 208 and 209, and “Unregistered and private books of accounts (ledgers,
authorizing Revenue Examiner de Leon make and journals, columnars, receipts and disbursements books,
file the application for search warrant which was customers ledgers); receipts for payments received;
attached to the letter. certificates of stocks and securities; contracts, promissory
 The next day, de Leon and his witnesses went to notes and deeds of sale; telex and coded messages;
CFI Rizal to obtain the search warrant. At that time J business communications, accounting and business records;
Ruiz was hearing a certain case; so, by means of a checks and check stubs; records of bank deposits and
note, he instructed his Deputy Clerk of Court to take withdrawals; and records of foreign remittances, covering the
the depositions of De Leon and Logronio. years 1966 to 1970.”
 After the session had adjourned, J Ruiz was
informed that the depositions had already been The description does not meet the requirement in Art III, Sec.
taken. The stenographer read to him her 1, of the Constitution, and of Sec. 3, Rule 126 of the Revised
stenographic notes; and thereafter, J Ruiz asked Rules of Court, that the warrant should particularly describe
respondent Logronio to take the oath and warned the things to be seized.
him that if his deposition was found to be false and
without legal basis, he could be charged for perjury. A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the
J  Ruiz signed de Leon’s application things to be seized when the description therein is as specific
for search warrant and Logronio’s deposition. as the circumstances will ordinarily allow or when the
 The search was subsequently conducted. description expresses a conclusion of fact not of law by which
the warrant officer may be guided in making the search and
ISSUE:  seizure or when the things described are limited to those
which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant
Whether or not there had been a valid search warrant. is being issued.
 
HELD:  The case pointed out that one of the tests to determine
The SC ruled in favor of Bache on three grounds. the particularity in the description of objects to be seized
under a search warrant is when the things described are
1.  J Ruiz failed to personally examine the complainant limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense
and his witness. for which the warrant is being issued.

Personal examination by the judge of the complainant and his PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is granted.
witnesses is necessary to enable him to determine the Accordingly, Search Warrant No. 2-M-70 issued by
existence or non-existence of a probable cause. respondent Judge is declared null and void;
respondents are permanently enjoined from enforcing
The participation of respondent Judge in the proceedings the said search warrant; the documents, papers and
which led to the issuance of Search Warrant 2-M-70 was effects seized thereunder are ordered to be returned to
thus limited to listening to the stenographer’s readings of petitioners; and respondent officials the Bureau of Internal
her notes to a few words of warning against the Revenue and their representatives are permanently enjoined
commission of perjury, and to administering the oath to from enforcing the assessments mentioned in Annex "G" of
the complainant and his witness. This cannot be the present petition, as well as other assessments based on
considered a personal examination. If there was an the documents, papers and effects seized under the search
examination at all of the complainant and his witness, it warrant herein nullified, and from using the same against
was one conducted by the Deputy Clerk of Court petitioners in any criminal or other proceeding. No
pronouncement as to costs.
2.  The search warrant was issued for more than one
specific offense.

5 CONSTI LAW 2 ARREST,SEARCH,SEIZURE DIGEST RHEYNE ROBLEDO

 STONEHIL V DIOKNO G.R. No. L-19550June 19, 1967 – - Officers of certain corporations, from which the
POSSESSION OF BOOKS AND FINANCIAL RECORDS documents, papers, things were seized by means of
ETC CASE – SEARCH WARRANT ON CORPORATION search warrants, have no  cause of action to assail the
CASE legality of the contested warrants and of the seizures
made in pursuance thereof, for the simple reason that said
CONCEPCION, C.J.: corporations have their respective personalities, separate and
distinct from the personality of herein petitioners, regardless
FACTS: of the amount of shares of stock or of the interest of each of
 Respondent made possible the issuance of 42 search them in said corporations, and whatever the offices they hold
warrants against the petitioner and the corporation to therein may be. Indeed, it is well settled that the legality of
search persons and premises of several personal a seizure can be contested only  by the party whose
properties due to an alleged violation of Central Bank rights have been impaired thereby, and that the objection
Laws, Tariff and Custom Laws, Internal Revenue to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and
Code and the Revised Penal Code of the Philippines. cannot be availed of by third parties. 
As a results, search and seizures were conducted in
the both the residence of the petitioner and in the Officers of certain corporations can not validly object to the
corporation's premises. use in evidence against them of the documents, papers and
 Petitioners filed with the Supreme Court this original things seized from the offices and premises of the
action for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus and corporations adverted to above, since the right to object to
injunction and prayed that, pending final disposition of the admission of said papers in evidence belongs
the case, a writ of preliminary injunction be issued exclusively to the corporations, to whom the seized
against the prosecutors, their agents and effects belong, and may not be invoked by the corporate
representatives from using the effect seized or any officers in proceedings against them in their
copies thereof, in the deportation case and that individual capacity.
thereafter, a decision be rendered quashing the
contested search warrants and declaring the same
null and void. For being violative of the constitution 2.) Whether or not the search warrants issued partakes the
and the Rules of court by: nature of a general search warrants.
(1) not describing with particularity the documents,
books and things to be seized; - The Constitution  provides:
(2) money not mentioned in the warrants were
seized; The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
(3) the warrants were issued to fish evidence for papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and
deportation cases filed against the petitioner; seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but
(4) the searches and seizures were made in an upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge after
illegal manner; and examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and
(5) the documents paper and cash money were not the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the
delivered to the issuing courts for disposal in place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
accordance with law.
 In their answer, the prosecutors (respondent) alleged; Two points must be stressed in connection with this
(1) search warrants are valid and issued in constitutional mandate, namely:
accordance with law;
(2) defects of said warrants, were cured by (1) that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause,
petitioners consent; and to be determined by the judge in the manner set forth in
(3) in any event the effects are admissible regardless said provision; and
of the irregularity. (2) that the warrant shall particularly  describe the things
 Respondent-prosecutors also invoke the Moncado vs to be seized.
People’s Court ruling: even if the searches and
seizures under consideration were unconstitutional, Search warrants issued upon applications stating that the
the documents, papers and things thus seized are natural and juridical person therein named had committed a
admissible in evidence against petitioners herein. "violation of Central Ban Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws,
 On March 20, 1962, the SC issued a writ of Internal Revenue (Code) and Revised Penal Code." In other
preliminary injunction and partially lifted the same on words, no specific offense had been alleged in said
June 29, 1962 with respect to some documents and applications. The averments thereof with respect to the
papers seized from the offices of the corporations. offense committed were abstract. As a consequence, it
was impossible  for the judges who issued the warrants
ISSUES AND HELD: to have found the existence of probable cause, for the
same presupposes the introduction of competent proof
1.) Whether or not the petitioners have the legal standing to that the party against whom it is sought has
assail the legality of search warrants issued against the performed particular  acts, or
corporation of which they were officers. committed specific  omissions, violating a given
provision of our criminal laws.

6 CONSTI LAW 2 ARREST,SEARCH,SEIZURE DIGEST RHEYNE ROBLEDO

 The Court held that the doctrine adopted in the Moncado
General search warrants  are outlawed because the sanctity case must be, as it is hereby, abandoned; that the
of the domicile and the privacy of communication and warrants for the search of three (3) residences of herein
correspondence at the mercy of the whims caprice or passion petitioners, as specified in the Resolution of June 29,
of peace officers. 1962, are null and void; that the searches and seizures
therein made are illegal; that the writ of preliminary
To prevent the issuance of general warrants this Court injunction heretofore issued, in connection with the
deemed it fit to amend Section 3 of Rule 122 of the former documents, papers and other effects thus seized in said
Rules of Court by providing in its counterpart, under the residences of herein petitioners is hereby made
Revised Rules of Court  that "a search warrant shall not permanent; that the writs prayed for are granted, insofar as
issue but upon probable cause in connection with one the documents, papers and other effects so seized in the
specific offense." Not satisfied with this qualification, the aforementioned residences are concerned; that the
Court added thereto a paragraph, directing that "no aforementioned motion for Reconsideration and
search warrant shall issue for more than one specific Amendment should be, as it is hereby, denied; and that
offense." the petition herein is dismissed and the writs prayed for
denied, as regards the documents, papers and other effects
Seizure of books and records showing all business seized in the twenty-nine (29) places, offices and other
transaction of petitioners persons, regardless of whether the premises enumerated in the same Resolution, without
transactions were legal or illegal contravened the explicit special pronouncement as to costs.
command of our Bill of Rights - that the things to be seized
be particularly described - as well as tending to defeat its
major objective the elimination of general warrants.

3.) Whether or not the seized articles were admissible as

evidence regardless of the illegality of its seizure.

- Most common law jurisdiction have already given up the

Moncado ruling and eventually adopted the exclusionary
rule, realizing that this is the only practical means of
enforcing the constitutional injunction against
unreasonable searches and seizures. In the language of
Judge Learned Hand:

As we understand it, the reason for the exclusion of

evidence competent as such, which has been unlawfully
acquired, is that exclusion is the only practical way of
enforcing the constitutional privilege. In earlier times the
action of trespass against the offending official may have
been protection enough; but that is true no longer. Only in
case the prosecution which itself controls the seizing
officials, knows that it cannot profit by their wrong will
that wrong be repressed.
 
The non-exclusionary rule is contrary, not only to the letter,
but also, to the spirit of the constitutional injunction against
unreasonable searches and seizures. To be sure, if the
applicant for a search warrant has competent evidence
to establish probable cause of the commission of a
given crime by the party against whom the warrant is
intended, then there is no reason why the applicant
should not comply with the requirements of the
fundamental law. Upon the other hand, if he has no such
competent evidence, then it is not possible for the
Judge to find that there is probable cause, and, hence,
no justification for the issuance of the warrant. The only
possible explanation (not justification) for its issuance is the
necessity of fishing evidence of the commission of a crime.
But, then, this fishing expedition is indicative of the absence
of evidence to establish a probable cause.

7 CONSTI LAW 2 ARREST,SEARCH,SEIZURE DIGEST RHEYNE ROBLEDO