manner that perjury could be charged

SECTION 2. thereon and affiant be held liable for

 The right of the people to be dam. ages caused.
secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects against IN DETERMINATION OF
unreasonable searches and REASONABLENESS OF THE
seizures of whatever nature and SEARCH AND SEIZURE, WHAT ARE
for any purpose shall be THE FACTORS THAT MAY BE
inviolable; and CONSIDERED?
 no search warrant or warrant of 1. Circumstances involved
arrest shall issue except upon 2. Purpose of the search,
probable cause to be 3. Presence or absence or probable
determined personally by the cause,
judge after examination under 4. The manner in which the search and
oath or affirmation of the seizure was made,
complainant and the witnesses 5. The place or thing searched, and
he may produce, and 6. The character of the articles procured
particularly describing the place (Alvarez v. CFI)
to be searched and the persons
or things to be seized (PPOP). Stonehill vs. DIokno – Right to RSS is
personal. Invoked only by the party
Alvarez v. CFI – violation of RSS whose right was violated.
Search warrant - is an order in writing,
issued in the name of the People of the Nobody can represent the corporation
Philippine Islands, signed by a judge or unless armed with a board resolution.
a justice of the peace, and directed to a So regardless of the shareholding of a
peace officer, commanding him to stockholder or of the position of an
search for personal property and bring it officer, he cannot raise defenses
before the court (Sec 1, Rule 126) available to the corporation without an
proceeding in rem, sui generis. express authority from the board of
directors.
Oath - includes any form of attestation
by which a party signifies that he is People v. Marti - The constitutional
bound in conscience to perform an act guarantee against unreasonable
faithfully and truthfully; and it is searches, seizures and arrests only
sometimes defined as an outward applies against the government and law
pledge given by the person taking it that enforcement officers.
his attestation or promise is made under
an immediate sense of his responsibility Law enforcement officer is a public
to God. officer who has a duty:
 to arrest offenders of law; and
True test of sufficiency of an affidavit to  to investigate the commission of
warrant issuance of a search warrant: crimes.
whether it has been drawn in such a
 It is a special and peculiar remedy,
WHAT PERSONAL PROPERTIES drastic in nature, and made necessary
THAT CAN BE SEIZED BY VIRTUE OF because of public necessity.
A SEARCH WARRANT?
1. Subject of the offense; PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE: (PIA)
2. Stolen or embezzled and other (a) the executing law enforcement
proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or officer has a prior justification for an
3. Used or intended to be used as a initial intrusion or otherwise properly in a
means of committing an offense (Sec. 3, position from which he can view a
Rule 126, Rules of Court) particular order;
(b) the officer must discover
FOR HOW LONG IS A SEARCH incriminating evidence inadvertently;
WARRANT VALID? and
● 10 days counted from its date (Sec. (c) it must be immediately apparent to
10, Rule 126, Rules of Court) the police that the items they observe
may be evidence of a crime,
WHAT IS A WARRANT OF ARREST? contraband, or otherwise subject to
● An order in writing issued in the name seizure.
of the People of the Philippines, signed
by a judge and directed to a peace WHAT ARE THE REQUISITES OF A
officer commanding him to take a VALID WARRANT? (PPOP)
person into custody in order that he may 1. It must be based on probable cause
be bound to answer for the commission 2. Determined personally by the judge
of an offense. 3. The examination must be under oath
or affirmation of the complainant and
FOR HOW LONG IS A WARRANT OF witnesses
ARREST VALID? 4. Must particularly describe the persons
 Valid until served or things to be seized or the place to be
 But under the Rules of Court searched.
particularly Rule 113 there is a
duty on the part of police officers (1) PROBABLE CAUSE
to make a return of the warrant  Such facts and circumstances
within 10 days from its receipt. antecedent to the issuance of the
warrant that are in themselves
United Laboratories vs. Isip – search sufficient to induce a reasonably
warrant may be initiated by private cautious man to rely upon them
corporation. and act in pursuance thereof.
 In relation to a search warrant,
The proceeding is not one against probable cause refers to such
any person, but is solely for the facts and circumstances which
discovery and to get possession of would lead a reasonably
personal property. discreet and prudent man to
believe that an offense has been
committed and that the object
 sought is in connection with the judge is not required to personally
crime and it can be found in the examine the complainant and his
place sought to be searched. witnesses.
It is enough that:
1. the judge personally evaluated the
report of the public prosecutor as
Mantaring v. Judge Roman – included well as the supporting affidavits
the owners of the house in the search and if satisfied, issue a warrant of
warrant. arrest.
2. If not, require the issuance of
WHAT ARE THE PROBABILITIES IN supporting affidavits of witness to
SEARCH WARRANT? aid him in arriving at a conclusion
1. The articles to be seized are as to the existence of probable
connected to a criminal activity, and cause, but no personal
2. They are found in the place to be examination is required
searched
Silva v. Presiding Judge of RTC –
WHAT ARE THE PROBABILITIES IN requires strict compliance with the
WARRANT OF ARREST? “personal” examination requirement.
1. The crime has been committed, and (SEARCH WARRANT)
2. Person who committed the crime is
probably guilty thereof. “SEC. 3. Requisite for issuing
search warrant.—A search warrant
In issuing warrants of arrest in shall not issue but upon probable cause
preliminary investigations, the in connection with one specific offense
investigating judge must: (Scattershot warrant) to be determined
(a) have examined in writing and under personally by the judge after
oath the complainant and his witnesses examination under oath or affirmation of
by searching questions and answers; the complainant and the witnesses he
(b) be satisfied that probable cause may produce, and particularly describing
exists; and the place to be searched and the things
(c) that there is a need to place the to be seized.
respondent under immediate custody in
order not to frustrate the ends of justice. “SEC. 4. Examination of
complainant; record. —The judge
(2) DETERMINED PERSONALLY BY must, before issuing the warrant,
THE JUDGE personally examine in the form of
searching questions and answers, in
Soliven v. Judge Makasiar – not writing and under oath the complainant
literally personal examination and any witnesses he may produce on
(WARRANT OF ARREST) facts personally known to them and
In satisfying himself of the attach to the record their sworn
existence of probable cause for the statements together with any affidavits
issuance of a warrant of arrest, the submitted.”
WARRANTS NOT ISSUED BY THE (3) THE EXAMINATION MUST BE
JUDGE UNDER OATH OR AFFIRMATION OF
THE COMPLAINANT AND
Esteban v. Vivo – the requirement of WITNESSES
probable cause, to be determined by the
judge, does not extend to deportation WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE
proceedings. BETWEEN OATH AND
AFFIRMATION?
Section 37 of the Immigration Law, ● The only difference is the basis of the
which empowers the Commissioner of obligation.
Immigration to issue warrants for the ● Oath - includes any form of attestation
arrest of overstaying aliens, is by which a party signifies that he is
constitutional. The arrest is a step bound in conscience to perform an act
preliminary to the deportation of the faithfully and truthfully; and it is
aliens who had violated the condition of sometimes defined as an outward
their stay in this country. pledge given by the person taking it
that his attestation or promise is
Harvey v. Santiago – deportation of 22 made under an immediate sense of
pedophiles. his responsibility to God. The oath
required must refer to the truth of the
As long as the purpose is to facts within the personal knowledge of
execute a final order, administrative the petitioner or his witnesses, because
officers may be authorized by law to the purpose thereof is to convince the
issue warrants, whether warrants of committing magistrate, not the individual
arrest or search warrants. making the affidavit and seeking the
issuance of the warrant, of the existence
Salazar v. Achacoso – Illegal of probable cause.
recruitment case.
The Closure and Seizure Order WHAT IS THE TEST OF SUFFICIENT
was based on Article 38 of the Labor OATH?
Code. The Supreme Court held, “We Whether it has been drawn in such a
reiterate that the Secretary of Labor, not manner that perjury could be charged
being a judge, may no longer issue thereon and affiant be held liable for
search or arrest warrants. Hence, the damages caused. (Alvarez v. CFI)
authorities must go through the judicial
process. ● In an oath the obligation to tell the
truth is premised on belief in God. So
for those who do not believe in God
in lieu of an oath they may take
affirmation instead.
(4) MUST PARTICULARLY DESCRIBE sworn statements, together with the
THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE affidavits submitted. 
SEIZED OR THE PLACE TO BE DEPOSITION
SEARCHED Broadest Sense: to describe any
written statement verified by oath;
WHAT DOES PARTICULARITY IN THE More technical and Appropriate
DESCRIPTION MEAN? sense: is the testimony of a witness, put
That the police officer can identify or taken in writing, under oath or
the place, the object, and the person affirmation before a commissioner,
subject of the warrant. examiner or other judicial officer, in
Which means that even John Doe answer to interlocutory and cross
warrants are allowed as long as the interlocutory, and usually subscribed by
warrant provides personal description the witnesses.
that will allow the police officer to identify
who is the subject of the warrant. People v. Del Rosario – shabu
contained in a small canister
CAN THE POLICE OFFICER HAVING A search warrant is not a
PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE sweeping authority empowering a
SUPPLEMENT WHAT IS LACKING IN raiding party to undertake a fishing
THE WARRANT? expedition to seize and confiscate any
NO. The particularity of the and all kinds of evidence or articles
description must rest on the description relating to a crime.
on the warrant itself and not on the
circumstances which are personal to the Cannot be convicted of
serving officers. possession of the shabu contained in a
canister and allegedly seized at his
Mata v. Bayona house, for the charge against him was
Search warrant invalid as judge for selling shabu with the information
failed to conform with the essential alleging that the “accused, without legal
requisites of taking depositions and authority did . . . sell to a poseur buyer
attaching them to the record (Sec 5, an aluminum foil containing
Rule 126). However, the illegality of the Methamphetamine Hydrochloride . . .”.
search warrant does not call for the Sale is totally different from possession.
return of the things seized, the ALSO THE FIREARM SEIZED. Search
possession of which is prohibited (jai warrant only says “undetermined
Alai Case). quantity of Methampethamine
Section 5. The judge must, before Hydrochloride”
issuing the warrant, personally examine
in the form of searching questions and DOES THE CONSTITUTION ALLOW
answers, in writing and under oath, the GENERAL WARRANT?
complainant and the witnesses he may SCATTERSHOT WARRANT?
produce on facts personally known to NO. There is a general warrant when it
them and attach to the record their did not describe with particularity the
place to be searched and the person or
things to be seized. There is a
scattershot warrant when it is used for
more than one specific offense.
“IN HIS PRESENCE” – in flagrante
Sec 4, Rule 126: A search warrant shall delicto arrests
not issue except upon probable cause in People v. Sucro – selling marijuana at
connection with one specific offense to chapel
be determined personally by the judge “In his presence” only means that
after examination under oath or the police officer making the arrest sees
affirmation of the complainant and the the commission of the offense although
witnesses he may produce, and at a distance or heard the commission of
particularly describing the place to be the offense and proceeded at once to
searched and the things to be seized the scene of the crime and effected the
which may be anywhere in the arrest. – DO NOT REQUIRE PHYSICAL
Philippines. PRESENCE
In flagrante delicto arrests can
be effected as long as the police
WARRANTLESS ARREST officer has used any of his faculties
SEC. 5 RULE 113, ROC in order to observe the commission
1. When, in his presence, the person of the offense.
to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is SEARCH INCIDENT TO A LAWFUL
attempting to commit an offense WARRANTLESS ARREST
(arrest in flagrante delicto); People v. Gerente - while drinking
2. When an offense has just been liquor and smoking marijuana, REYES
committed, and he has probable overheard intention to kill Charito Blace.
cause to believe based on Policemen proceeded in the Gouse of
personal knowledge of facts or Gerente based on testimonies of Reyes.
circumstances that the person to The appellant contends that the
be arrested has committed it (hot trial court erred in admitting the
pursuit); and marijuana leaves as evidence in
3. When the person to be arrested is violation of his constitutional right not to
a prisoner who has escaped from be subjected to illegal search and
a penal establishment or place seizure, for the dried marijuana leaves
where he is serving final judgment were seized from him in the course of a
or is temporarily confined while his warrantless arrest by the police officers.
case is pending, or has escaped We do not agree. The search of
while being transferred from one appellant's person and the seizure of the
confinement to another. marijuana leaves in his possession
were valid because they were
incident to a lawful warrantless
arrest.
Umil v. Ramos (Subversion a seizure on petitioner's personal effects
Continuing Crime) – Regional due to the distinctive smell of marijuana
Intelligence Operations Unit of the emanating from petitioner's carton
Capital Command received confidential baggage and the unusual shape of the
information about the member of the Sagada woven bag. It also states that
NPA Sparrow Unit (Liquidation Squad) the probable cause of PO1Falolo was
being treated for a gunshot wound at the reinforced when petitioner ran away
St. Agnes Hospital in Roosevelt Avenue when asked for permission to check his
in Quezon City. baggage. Respondent concludes that
Rolando Dural was arrested for petitioner's warrantless arrest and
being a member of the New Peoples incidental search from such arrest were
Army (NPA), an outlawed subversive based on the existence of probable
organization. Subversion being a cause.
continuing offense, the arrest of Rolando A search of a moving vehicle may
Dural without warrant is justified as it either be a mere routine inspection or an
can be said that he was committing an extensive search. The search in a
offense when arrested. The crimes of routine inspection is limited to the
rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or following instances:
proposal to commit such crimes, and (1) where the officer merely draws aside
crimes or offenses committed in the curtain of a vacant vehicle which is
furtherance thereof or in connection parked on the public fair grounds;
therewith constitute direct assaults (2) simply looks into a vehicle;
against the State and are in the nature (3) flashes a light therein without
of continuing crimes. opening the car's doors;
(4) where the occupants are not
HOT PURSUIT subjected to a physical or body search;
Macad v. People – Bing bush bus; (5) where the inspection of the vehicles
pungent smell of marijuana: opened the is limited to a visual search or visual
box. Arrested petitioner at opened the inspection; and
box as an incident of a lawful (6) where the routine check is conducted
warrantless arrest. in a fixed area.
Petitioner asserts that the search
conducted was neither an incident of a Based on the foregoing,
lawful arrest nor was it made with his Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 requires the
consent. He assails that PO1 Falolo's apprehending team, after seizure and
actions belie that he had probable cause confiscation, to immediately conduct a
to believe that petitioner was physically inventory; and photograph the
transporting marijuana because it took same in the presence of (1) the
him a long time to make any overt act in accused or the persons from whom
arresting petitioner. such items were confiscated and/or
Respondent argues that at the seized, or his/her representative or
moment petitioner boarded the bus, counsel, (2) a representative from the
PO1 Falolo had probable cause to media and (3) the DOJ, and (4) any
conduct the warrantless search and elected public official who shall be
required to sign the copies of the petitioner Go had vigorously insisted on
inventory and be given a copy his right to preliminary investigation
thereof. before his arraignment. At the time of his
arraignment, petitioner was already
In the amendment of R.A. No. 10640, before the Court of Appeals on
the apprehending team is now required certiorari, prohibition and mandamus
to conduct a physical inventory of the precisely asking for a preliminary
seized items and photograph the same investigation before being forced to
in (1) the presence of the accused or stand trial.
the persons from whom such items
were confiscated and/or seized, or To effect a warrantless arrest
his/her representative or counsel, (2) under hot pursuit, the chain of events
with an elected public official and (3) from the commission of the offense to
a representative of the National the actual arrest must be connected with
Prosecution Service or the media who unbroken links.
shall be required to sign the copies of The determinative factor in hot
the inventory and be given a copy pursuit arrests is the link between the
thereof. In the present case, as the commission of the offense and the
alleged crimes were committed on actual arrest. The lapse of time is
November 27, 2011, then the provisions irrelevant. What is relevant is that the
of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 and its chain of events from the commission
IRR shall apply. up to the actual arrest must be
unbroken.
The physical inventory and
photograph shall be conducted at the People vs. Rodrigueza – by bust
place where the search warrant is operation “gave a certain object
served; or at the nearest police station wrapped in plastic”; RAID without search
or at the nearest office of the warrant on the house.
apprehending officer/team, whichever is After the buybust, poseur buyer
practicable, in case of warrantless taduran went to the headquarters.
seizures; Provided, further, that non- Thereafter, agents of the NARCOM
compliance with these requirements conducted a raid in the house of
under justifiable grounds, as long as the Jovencio ROdrigueza, and confiscated
integrity and the evidentiary value of the dried marijuana leaves and plastic
seized items are properly preserved by syringes. The search however, was not
the apprehending officer/team, shall not authorized by any search warrant.
render void and invalid such seizures of
and custody over said items[.] REASONABLE SEARCHES AND
SEIZURES EVEN WITHOUT
Go vs. CA – no preliminary investigation WARRANT
The rule is that the right to
 Owner of the premises waives his
preliminary investigation is waived when
right against such incursion;
the accused fails to invoke it before or
 Search is incidental to a lawful
at the time of entering a plea at
arrest
arraignment. In the instant case,
  Made on vessels and aircraft for vehicle was Identified. The date of its
violation of customs laws; arrival was certain. And from the
 Made on automobiles for the information they had received, they
purpose of preventing violations of could have persuaded a judge that there
smuggling or immigration laws; was probable cause, indeed, to justify
 When it involves prohibited articles the issuance of a warrant. Yet they did
in plain view; or nothing. No effort was made to comply
 In cases of inspection of buildings with the law. The Bill of Rights was
and other premises for the ignored altogether because the PC
enforcement of fire, sanitary and lieutenant who was the head of the
building regulations. arresting team, had determined on his
own authority that a "search warrant
was not necessary."
WARRANTLESS SEARCH
People v. Amminudin – M/V WIlcon 9 Without the evidence of the
in Ilo-ilo (Invalid arrest) marijuana allegedly seized from
There was no warrant of arrest or Aminnudin, the case of the prosecution
search warrant issued by a judge after must fall. That evidence cannot be
personal determination by him of the admitted, and should never have been
existence of probable cause. Contrary to considered by the trial court for the
the averments of the government, the simple fact is that the marijuana was
accused-appellant was not caught in seized illegally. It is the fruit of the
flagrante nor was a crime about to be poisonous tree, to use Justice Holmes'
committed or had just been committed felicitous phrase. The search was not an
to justify the warrantless arrest allowed incident of a lawful arrest because there
under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court. was no warrant of arrest and the
Even expediency could not be invoked warrantless arrest did not come under
to dispense with the obtention of the the exceptions allowed by the Rules of
warrant as in the case of Roldan v. Arca, Court. Hence, the warrantless search
for example. Here it was held that was also illegal and the evidence
vessels and aircraft are subject to obtained thereby was inadmissible.
warrantless searches and seizures for
violation of the customs law because
People v. Malmstedt – Swedish
these vehicles may be quickly moved
international; checkpoint in Mt. Province
out of the locality or jurisdiction before
– hashish in teddy bear and pouch:
the warrant can be secured. 
INCIDENTAL TO A LAWFUL ARREST
The present case presented no
SEC. 5. Arrest without warrant; when
such urgency. From the conflicting
lawful.––A peace officer or a private
declarations of the PC witnesses, it is
person may, without a warrant, arrest a
clear that they had at least two days
person:
within which they could have obtained a
(a) When, in his presence, the person to
warrant to arrest and search Aminnudin
be arrested has committed, is actually
who was coming to Iloilo on the M/V
Wilcon 9. His name was known. The
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 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) hereof, the person arrested
without a warrant shall be forthwith
delivered to the nearest police station or
jail, and he shall be proceeded against
in accordance with Rule 112, Section 7.
Accused was searched and
arrested while transporting prohibited
drugs (hashish). 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 provisions of law,
which allow a warrantless search
incident to a lawful arrest.

Luz v People – driving motorcycle

without helmet; while arrested, the
police was alerted by accused’s uneasy
movement (there is suspected shabu in
jacket)

ARREST – is the taking a person into

custody in order that he or she may be
bound to answer for the commission of
an offense.