Nolasco vs.

Pano
FACTS:
The case at bar is for the motion for partial reconsideration of the SCs
decision dated December 8, 1985, that decreed the search warrant issued
against petitioners null and void; that enjoined respondents from introducing
evidence using such search warrant; that retained personalities seized for
possible introduction as evidence in Criminal Cases No. SMC1-1 without
prejudice to petitioner Aguilar-Roque.

In their Motion for Partial Reconsideration, public respondents contend that the
search warrant is valid and that it should be considered in the context of
the crime of rebellion for which the warrant was based.

Petitioners on the other hand, assail that portion of the Decision holding that, in
so far as petitioner Aguilar-Roque is concerned, the search made in her premises
was incident to her arrest and could be made without a search warrant.
Petitioners submit that a warrantless search can be justified only if it is an
incident to a lawful arrest and that since Mila Aguilar was not lawfully arrested a
search without warrant could not be made The respondents, in defense, concede
that the search warrants were null and void but the arrests were not.

ISSUE:
WON the subject search was correctly declared illegal that warrants the return of
the items seized from the petitioners.

HELD:
Yes, the search was correctly declared illegal and in direct contravention of the
Constitutional right of the people against unreasonable searches and seizure.
The Bill of Rights orders the absolute exclusion of all illegally obtained evidence
as provided for in Article III, Section 4, paragraph 2 of the Constitution which
provides:

"Any evidence obtained in violation of this section and the preceding

article shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding"

Such warrantless search obviously cannot be made in a place other than the
place of arrest. In this case, petitioner Aguilar-Roque was arrested at 11:30 a.m.
on board a public vehicle on the road (at Mayon and P. Margall Streets). To hold
that her dwelling could "later on the same day" be searched without warrant is
to sanction an untenable violation, if not nullification, of the cited basic
constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

This constitutional mandate expressly adopting the exclusionary rule has proved
by historical experience to be the only practical means of enforcing the
constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures by
outlawing all evidence illegally seized and thereby removing the incentive on
the part of state and police officers to disregard such basic rights.
What the plain language of the Constitution mandates is beyond the power of
the courts to change or modify.