Page |1

The Right Against

Unreasonable Searches & Seizures:
A BASIC GUIDE

By Atty. Alexis F. Medina 1

San Sebastian College, Institute of Law

Sections 2 and 3 (2) of Article III of the Constitution provide:

"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 the judge after examination 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.

SEC 3. x x x

(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of x x x the preceding section shall

be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

GUIDE OUTLINE

1. How to determine if the search or seizure violates the

Constitutional prohibition

2. How to determine if the search or seizure is a government action

3. How to determine if the search or seizure is unreasonable

4. How to determine the legal consequences of the unlawful search or

seizure

Atty. Alexis F. Medina. AB Political Science, University of the Philippines (UP), Diliman; Order of
the Purple Feather (OPF), UP, College of Law; Valedictorian, San Sebastian College, Manila,
Institute of Law; Senior Associate, Ponce Enrile Reyes & Manlastas Law Offices (Pecabar)
 Page |2

I.

DOES THE SEARCH OR SEIZURE VIOLATE THE

CONSTITUTION?

Protection guaranteed: Immunity of persons, not places

The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is the immunity of

one's person, which includes his residence, his papers, and other possessions. The
guarantee refers to "the right of personal security" of the individual. What is sought to
be protected against the State's unlawful intrusion are persons, not places. To conclude
otherwise would lead to the absurd logic that for a person to be immune against
unreasonable searches and seizures, he must be in his home or office, within a fenced
yard or a private place. The Bill of Rights belongs as much to the person in the street as
to the individual in the sanctuary of his bedroom. 2

Basic Requirements for the constitutional prohibition to apply

The search or seizure violates the prohibition under Section 2, Article III
of the 1987 Constitution, if it is:

1. a government or state action; and

2. unreasonable

Requirement No.1: Government/State action

Rule: The search or seizure must be an action by the government or

state, otherwise the Constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and
seizures and the exclusionary rule will not apply. 3

The protection against unreasonable searches and seizures proscribes

only governmental action. It is wholly inapplicable to a search or seizure, even
an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of
the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental
official." 4

2People v. Valdez, 25 September 2000

3People v. Bangcarawan, 384 SCRA 525, 11 July 2002; People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57, 18 January 1991
4 United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984). Note that in the United States, the State Action Doctrine

was originally applied to First Amendment rights (freedom of speeh, religion, association, assembly) and
Fourteenth Amendment rights (due process and equal protection).
 Page |3

Reason: The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and

seizures applies as a restraint directed only against the government and its
agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. It could only be invoked
against the State. 5 This is because Bill of Rights governs the relationship
between the individual and the state, and not the relation between private
individuals. 6

Requirement No. 2: Unreasonable Search or Seizure

What the constitution prohibits are unreasonable searches and

seizures.

The constitutional guarantee is not a blanket prohibition against all searches and
seizures as it operates only against unreasonable searches and seizures. Searches and
seizures are as a rule unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued search warrant
or warrant of arrest. 7 Reasonableness is the touchstone of the validity of a
government search or intrusion. 8

Reasonable searches and seizures are allowed

The Constitutional proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures does

not, of course, forestall reasonable searches and seizure. What constitutes a reasonable
or even an unreasonable search in any particular case is purely a judicial question,
determinable from a consideration of the circumstances involved. 9

5 People v. Bangcarawan, 384 SCRA 525, 11 July 2002; People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57, 18 January 1991;
see also People v. Hipol, 407 SCRA 179, 22 July 2003)
6 See People v. Marti 18, 193 SCRA 57 January 1991; People v. Mendoza, 301 SCRA 66, 18 January 1999;

Burdeau v. McDowell (256 US 465 (1921), State v. Bryan (457 P.2d 661 [1968]; Walker v. State (429
S.W.2d 121), Bernas v. US (373 F.2d 517)
7 People v. Libnao, 395 SCRA 407, 20 January 2003
8 Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, 570 SCRA 411, 03 November 2008
9 People v. Chua Ho San, 17 June 1999
 Page |4

II.

IS THE SEARCH OR SEIZURE A GOVERNMENT ACTION?

Rule: A search by a private individual, without the intervention of

the police, is not covered by the constitutional prohibition

If the search is made at the behest or initiative of the proprietor of a private

establishment for its own and private purposes, and without the intervention of police
authorities, the right against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked.10
Thus, in People v. Bangcarawan, 11the baggage of the accused was searched by
the vessel security personnel. It was only after they found shabu inside the suitcase that
they called the Philippine Coast Guard for assistance. The Supreme Court ruled that the
search and seizure of the suitcase and the contraband items were carried out without
government intervention, and hence, the search did not come under the Constitutional
prohibition, and the seized shabu was deemed admissible as evidence.

III.

IS THE SEARCH OR SEIZURE UNREASONABLE?

Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

1. Unreasonable: Searches and seizures without a warrant

A search and seizure must be carried through or with a judicial warrant;

otherwise, such search and seizure becomes unreasonable. 12 Searches, seizures and
arrests are normally unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued search warrant
or warrant of arrest. 13

No arrest, search and seizure can be made without a valid warrant issued by a
competent judicial authority. The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be

10 People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57, 18 January 1991

11 384 SCRA 525, 11 July 2002
12 People v. Nuevas, 516 SCRA 463, 22 February 2007; People v. Compacion, 361 SCRA 540, 20 July 2001;

People v. Valdez, 345 SCRA 357, 25 September 2000; People v. Tudtud, 482 SCRA 142, 26 September 2003;
Pita v. Court of Appeals, 178 SCRA 362,05 October 1989; People v. Chua Ho San, 308 scra 432, 17 June
1999; People v. Barros, 231 SCRA 557, 565
13 David v. Macapagal-Arroyo 489 SCRA 162, 03 May 2006
 Page |5

secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures. 14

The Constitution bars State intrusions to a person's body, personal effects or

residence except if conducted by virtue of a valid search warrant issued in compliance
with the procedure outlined in the Constitution and reiterated in the Rules of Court;
otherwise such search and seizure become unreasonable within the meaning of the
aforementioned constitutional provision. 15

2. Unreasonable: Searches and seizures under an invalid

warrant

If the search warrant is null and void, the searches and seizures made therein
are illegal.16

The search warrant must strictly comply with the requirements of the
Constitution and the statutory provisions. Failure to comply with any requirement
mandated by law for the issuance of a search warrant renders such search warrant
invalid, the subsequent search unlawful, and evidence obtained therefrom inadmissible.
17

If the search warrant is null and void, the searches and seizures made therein
are illegal.18

Requisites for a valid search warrant

(1) It must be issued upon probable cause;

(2) The probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and
not by the applicant or any other person;
(3) In the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine,
under oath or affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may
produce; and
(4) The warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be
searched and persons or things to be seized.19

14 People v. Valdez, 03 March 1999

15 People v. Chua Ho San, 17 June 1999; People v. Barros 231 SCRA 557, 565
16 See Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383, 19 June 1967; Bache and Co., (Phil.) Inc. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823, 27

February 1971
17 See People v. Mamaril 22, 420 SCRA 662, January 2004; PICOP v. Asuncion, 307 SCRA 253, 19 May 1999;

See also Asian Surety v. Herrera, 54 SCRA 312, 20 December 1973; Alvarez v. CFI Tayabas, 64 Phil 33, 29
January 1937; Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800, December 1984
18 See Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383, 19 June 1967; Bache and Co., (Phil.) Inc. v. Ruiz, 37
SCRA 823, 27 February 1971
19
Section 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution; Hon Ne Chan v. Honda Motor, 541 SCRA 249, 19
December 2007
 Page |6

A search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in

connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge
after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched
and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines. 20

Probable cause for a search warrant: Defined

The existence of such facts and circumstances which would lead a
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been
committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the
place to be searched. 21

Probable cause: How determined

To be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath
or affirmation of the complainant and his witnesses he may produce. 22

Probable cause: Personal knowledge required

Absent the element of personal knowledge by the applicant or his
witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of a search warrant may be
justified, the warrant is deemed not based on probable cause and is a nullity, its
issuance being, in legal contemplation, arbitrary.23

Search warrant does not justify search & seizure of any evidence
A search warrant is not a sweeping authority for a fishing expedition to
seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to a
crime. Nothing should be left to the discretion of the officer executing the
warrant. 24

Test of particularity of description

A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be
seized when the description therein is as specific as the circumstances will
ordinarily allow; or when the description expresses a conclusion of fact not of
law by which the warrant officer may be guided in making the search and
seizure; or when the things described are limited to those which bear direct
relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. 25

20 Section 4, Rule 126, Rules of Court

21 Sony Music v. Espanol, et al., 453 SCRA 360, 14 March 2005; Nala v. Barroso, 408 SCRA 529, 07 August
2003; Santos v. Pryce Gases, 538 SCRA 474, 23 November 2007)
22 Section 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution
23 (Sony Music v. Espanol, et al., 453 SCRA 360, 14 March 2005)

24(Unilab. Isip, 461 SCRA 575, 28 June 2005; People v. Francisco, 387 SCRA 569, 22 August 2002)
25Bache and Co., (Phil.) Inc. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823, 27 February 1971; Columbia pictures versus court of
Appeals, 262 SCRA 219, 20 September 1996; Uy v. BIR, 345 SCRA 36, 20 October 2000)
 Page |7

GENERAL RULE:

A search or seizure by the government without a judicial

warrant is unreasonable and thus, illegal.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE:

Warrantless searches that are reasonable and, thus, valid

The Constitutional proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures does

not forestall reasonable searches and seizure. What constitutes a reasonable or even an
unreasonable search in any particular case is purely a judicial question, determinable
from a consideration of the circumstances involved. 26

In the following instances, the search is reasonable even without a warrant:

(1) search incident to a lawful arrest;

(2) search of a moving motor vehicle;

(3) search in violation of customs laws;

(4) seizure of evidence in plain view;

(5) search when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable
searches and seizures (consented search);

(6) stop and frisk (Terry search); and

(7) search arising from exigent and emergency circumstances.27

26People v. Chua Ho San, 308 SCRA 432, 17 June 1999

27People v. Tudtud, 412 SCRA 427, 26 September 2006; Epie v. Ulat-Marredo, 518 SCRA 641, 22 March
2007; People v. Sarap 399 SCRA 503, March 26, 2003; People v. Nuevas, 516 SCRA 463, 22 February 2007;
People v. Valdez, 304 SCRA 140, 03 March 1999
 Page |8

Other warrantless searches that are reasonable and valid

In People v. Agulay 28, the Supreme Court enumerated other instances of valid
warrantless searches, specifically:

- searches of vessels and aircraft for violation of immigration, customs

and drug laws;

- searches of automobiles at borders or constructive borders; and

- searches of buildings and premises to enforce fire, sanitary, and

building regulations.

In People v. Johnston, the Supreme Court also held valid a warrantless search
pursuant to routine airport security procedure, which is authorized under Section
9 of Republic Act No. 6235. 29

Under Section 6 of Commonwealth Act 613 or the Philippine Immigration Act as

amended, immigration inspectors are empowered to go aboard and search for aliens on
any vessel or other conveyance in which they believe aliens are being brought into the
Philippines.

VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCHES & SEIZURES:

A CLOSER LOOK

(1) Search incident to a lawful arrest

Purpose of search
A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything
which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a
search warrant. 30

There must first be a valid arrest before a search

The law requires that there first be a valid arrest before a search can be made
the process cannot be reversed. 31

28 26 September 2008
29 People v. Johnston 348 SCRA 526; People v. Macalaba 20 January 2003
30 Section 12, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure; People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592,

21 March 2000
31 People v. Binad Sy Chua, 396 SCRA 657, 04 February 2003; People v. Molina, 352 SCRA 174, 19 February

2001
 Page |9

Limits to the scope of search incidental to a lawful arrest

As to Area: Immediate Control Test

The seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons must be either on the person of
the one arrested or within the area of his immediate control. The phrase within the
area of his immediate control means the area from within which he might gain
possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. 32

Should be limited to the area within which the person to be arrested can reach
for a weapon or for evidence that he or she can destroy. 33

As to Subject
As to subject, the search must only be with respect to the person of the suspect,
and things that may be seized from him are limited to "dangerous weapons" or "anything
which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense." 34

A gun on a table or in a drawer in front of one who is arrested can be as

dangerous to the arresting officer as one concealed in the clothing of the person arrested.
35

As to Time
The search must be contemporaneous with the lawful arrest. The search must be
conducted at about the time of the arrest or immediately thereafter and only at the place
where the suspect was arrested, or the premises or surroundings under his immediate
control. 36

(2) Search of a moving motor vehicle

Limited car inspection: Valid even without probable cause

Routine inspections of motor vehicles are normally permissible in the following
instances: (1) where the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle which
is parked on the public fair ground; (2) simply looks into a vehicle; (3) flashes a light
therein without opening the car's doors; (4) where the occupants are not subjected to a
physical or body search; (5) where the inspection of the vehicles is limited to a visual
search or visual inspection; and (6) where the routine check is conducted in a fixed
area.37

Visual search: Probable cause not required

When there is no probable cause, peace officers are limited to routine checks
where the examination of the vehicle is limited to visual inspection. 38

32 Valeroso v. Court of Appeals, 3 September 2009, G.R. No. 16481; People v. Cubcubin, 360 SCRA 690, 10 July
2001
33 People v. Estella, 395 SCRA 553, 21 January 2003
34 People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592, 21 March 2000
35 Valeroso v. Court of Appeals, 3 September 2009, G.R. No. 16481; People v. Estella, 395 SCRA 553, 21 January
2003
36 People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592, 21 March 2000
37 Caballes v. Court of Appeals, 15 January 2002
38 People v. Libnao, 325 SCRA 407, 20 January 2003
 P a g e | 10

Extensive search: Probable cause required

When a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search, such would be
constitutionally permissible only if the officers made it upon probable cause, i.e., upon a
belief, reasonably arising out of circumstances known to the seizing officer, that an
automobile or other vehicle contains as item, article or object which by law is subject to
seizure and destruction, 39 or instrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime, in the
vehicle to be searched. 40

Extensive search must be done only when it is not practicable to secure

a warrant
Warrantless search of a moving vehicle is allowed only when it is not practicable
to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the area or
jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. 41

Search of moving vehicle principle applies to fishing vessels and boats

Search and seizure without search warrant of vessels and aircrafts for violations
of customs laws have been the traditional exception to the constitutional requirement of
a search warrant. It is rooted on the recognition that a vessel and an aircraft, like motor
vehicles, can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the search
warrant must be sought and secured. The same exception ought to apply to seizures of
fishing vessels and boats breaching fishery laws. 42

(3) Search in violation of customs laws

Enforcers of customs and tariff laws are authorized to effect searches, seizures,
and arrests, and to make seizure, among others, of any cargo, articles or other movable
property when the same may be subject to forfeiture or liable for any fine imposed under
customs and tariff laws. They could lawfully open and examine any box, trunk, envelope
or other container wherever found when he had reasonable cause to suspect the
presence therein of dutiable articles introduced into the Philippines contrary to law; and
likewise to stop, search and examine any vehicle, beast or person reasonably
suspected of holding or conveying such articles.

Based on Section 2203 of the Tariff and Customs Code, except in the case of the
search of a dwelling house, persons exercising police authority under the customs law
may effect search and seizure without a search warrant in the enforcement of customs
laws. 43 (emphases supplied)

(4) Seizure of evidence in plain view (plain view doctrine)

39 People v. Libnao, 325 SCRA 407, 20 January 2003

40 People v. Lapitaje, 392 SCRA 674, 19 February 2003
41 People v. Lapitaje, 392 SCRA 674, 19 February 2003
42 Hizon v. CA, 265 SCRA 517, 13 December 1996
43 Papa v. Mago, 22 SCRA 257, 28 February 1968; see also Salvador v, People, 463 SCRA 489, 15 July 2005
 P a g e | 11

Under the plain view doctrine, objects failing in plain view of an officer who has a
right to be in that position to have that view are subject to seizure even without a search
warrant and may be introduced in evidence. 44

Elements of a valid seizure of evidence in plain view

(a) A prior valid intrusion in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of
their official duties;
(b) The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right
to be where they are;
(c) The evidence must be immediately apparent;
(d) Plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search. 45

Evidence in plain view may be seized, although not described in the

search warrant 46

Meaning of immediately apparent

At the time of the discovery of the object or facts or at the moment of seizure,
the officer has probable cause to connect the object to criminal activity. 47

Meaning of inadvertence
The officer must not have known in advance of the location of the evidence and
intend to seize it. Discovery is not anticipated. 48

(5) Search when the accused himself waives his right against
unreasonable searches and seizures (consented search)

The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right which
may be waived expressly or impliedly. 49

Consent must be unequivocal, specific and intelligently given

The consent to the search must be voluntary, unequivocal, specific, and
intelligently given, uncontaminated by any duress or coercion. The consent to a search
must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. 50

Requisites for a valid waiver

In case of consented searches or waiver of the constitutional guarantee against
obtrusive searches, it must first appear that (1) the right exists; (2) the person involved
had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the existence of such right; and (3) the
said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right. 51

Peaceful submission is not consent

44 Abelita v. Doria, 14 August 2009; People v. Doria, 301 SCRA 668,22 January 1999; People v. Lagman,
573 SCRA 225, 08 December 2008
45 People v. Nuevas, 576 SCRA 463; 22 February 2007; People v. Compacion, 361 SCRA 540, 20 July 2001
46 Unilab v. Isip, 461 SCRA 575, 28 June 2005
47 Unilab v. Isip, 461 SCRA 575, 28 June 2005
48 Unilab v. Isip, 461 SCRA 575, 28 June 2005
49 People v. Cubcubin, 360 SCRA 690, 10 July 2001
50 People v. Nuevas 22 February 2007, 576 SCRA 463
51People v. Nuevas, 576 SCRA 463, 22 February 2007
 P a g e | 12

Peaceful submission to a search or seizure is not a consent or an invitation

thereto, but is merely a demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the law. 52 The
accused is not to be presumed to have waived the unlawful search simply because he
failed to object. 53

The presumption is against waiver of constitutional right. 54

(6) Stop and frisk (Terry search)

Scope
Limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons. 55

When stop and frisk is valid

Where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to
conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the
persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and dangerous, where in the course of
investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable
inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his
reasonable fear for his own or others safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself
and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such
persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. 56

Mere suspicion is not enough for a stop-and-frisk; there must be

genuine reason to believe that the person has a concealed weapon
Mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a stop-and-frisk. A genuine reason
must exist, in light of the police officers experience and surrounding conditions, to
warrant the belief that the person detained has weapons concealed about him. 57

(7) Search arising from exigent and emergency circumstances

In People v. De Gracia (233 SCRA 716, [1994]), there were intelligence reports
that the building was being used as headquarters by the RAM during a coup detat. A
surveillance team was fired at by a group of armed men coming out of the building and
the occupants of said building refused to open the door despite repeated
requests. There were large quantities of explosives and ammunitions inside the
building. Nearby courts were closed and general chaos and disorder prevailed. The
existing circumstances sufficiently showed that a crime was being committed. In short,
there was probable cause to effect a warrantless search of the building. 58

52 People v. Nuevas, 576 SCRA 463, 22 February 2007; People v. Comnpacion, 361 SCRA 540, 20 July 2009
53 People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1; People v. Compacion, 361 SCRA 540, 20 July 2001
54 People v. Burgos 144 SCRA 1, 1986; People v. Compacion, 361 SCRA 540, 20 July 2001; People v. Aruta

288 SCRA 626

55 People v. Binad Sy Chua, 396 SCRA 657, 04 February 2003; Malacat v. People, 283 SCRA 159, 12

December 1997
56 People v. Binad Sy Chua, 396 SCRA 657, 04 February 2003; Malacat v. People, 283 SCRA 159, 12

December 1997
57 People v. Binad Sy Chua, 396 SCRA 657, 04 February 2003; Malacat v. People, 283 SCRA 159, 12

December 1997
58 also cited in People v. Aruta, 288 SCRA 626, 03 April 1998
 P a g e | 13

Probable cause:
The basic requirement in all warrantless searches

In People v Aruta 3 April 1998, the Supreme Court declared that the essential
requisite of probable cause must still be satisfied before a warrantless search and
seizure can be lawfully conducted. In searches and seizures effected without a warrant,
it is necessary for probable cause to be present.

IV.

WHAT ARE THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF

AN UNLAWFUL SEARCH OR SEIZURE?

1. The exclusionary rule applies: Evidence obtained is

inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

If a search or seizure is unreasonable, any evidence obtained therefrom

is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. 59

Thus, evidence obtained during an illegal search or seizure . . .

(a) is inadmissible to prove the guilt of the accused. 60

(b) cannot be used to legally obtain other evidence.
Evidence obtained from/as a result of evidence obtained in an illegal search
would also be inadmissible for being fruit of the poisonous tree.
Under, the exclusionary rule known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree," once
the primary source (the "tree") is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any
secondary or derivative evidence (the "fruit") derived from it is also inadmissible.
The rule is based on the principle that evidence illegally obtained by the State

59Sections 2, and 3 [2], Art. III, 1987 Constitution; People v. Nuevas, 576 SCRA 463, 22 February 2007;
See also People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592, 21 March 2000; People v. Sarap, 399 SCRA 503, 26
March 2003; People v. Bangcarawan, 384 SCRA 525, 11 July 2002
60See People v. Sarap, 399 SCRA 503, 26 March 2003; People v. Francisco, 387 SCRA 592, 22 August 2002;
People v. Valdez, 341 SCRA 253, 25 September 2000; People v. Asis, 391 SCRA 108, 15 October 2002
 P a g e | 14

should not be used to gain other evidence because the originally illegally
obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained.61
(c) cannot be used to justify a subsequent warrantless
arrest. 62

2. Even if the search was unlawful, and the evidence obtained

was excluded, the court may still convict the accused on the basis of
other pieces of admissible evidence. 63
Thus, in People v. Che Chun Ting, 64 the Supreme Court declared that the
search in the condominium unit of the accused was illegal (the area was not
within the immediate control of the accused at the time of the arrest), and the
shabu seized therein was inadmissible as evidence. However, the Supreme Court
upheld the conviction of the accused on the basis of evidence consisting of,
among others, shabu which was found in bag of the accused at the time the
police arrested him in flagrante delicto in a buy-bust operation. 65

3. If the items seized in an illegal search are contraband or

prohibited by law, the same cannot be returned to the owner. 66

However, objects and properties the possession of which is prohibited by

law cannot be returned to their owners notwithstanding the illegality of their
seizure. 67

4. If the items seized in an illegal search are not contraband,

the same should be returned to the owner. 68

Seized items that are products of an illegal search, and are not
contraband per se, nor objects in connection with the offense, should be
returned to the person from whom the same were taken. 69

61
People v. Alicando 321 Phil 656, 12 December 1995; People v. Domantay 307 SCRA 1, 09 May 1999;
People v. Conde, 356 SCRA 415, 10 April 2001
62 See People v. Sarap, 399 SCRA 503, 26 March 2003
63See People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592, 21 March 2000 and People v. Rondero, 320 SCRA 383, 09
December 1999
64 21 March 2000

65 See also People v. Rondero 09 December 1999)

66 Castro v. Pabalan, 70 SCRA 477, 30 April 1976; People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592, 21 March 2000
67 People v. Che Chun Ting 21 March 2000
68 See Bache and Co., (Phil.) Inc. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823, 27 February 1971; Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 133

SCRA 800, 26 December 1984; Nala v. Barroso, 408 SCRA 529, 07 August 2003
69 See Nala v. Barroso 07 August 2003
P a g e | 15