You are on page 1of 40

A.

(GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS) obligatory, and that he was justified in requiring petitioner and her
witnesses to take the witness stand in order to determine probable
1. AAA v. Carbonell cause.

FACTS: ISSUE: WON Judge Carbonell acted with grave abuse of discretion in
dismissing Criminal Case No. 6983 for lack of probable cause
Feb. 28, 2001 to Aug.16, 2001: AAA worked as a secretary at the
Arzadon Automotive and Car Service Center. He Boss Arzadon is the HELD: YES.Soliven v. Makasiar: The constitutional provision does
accused.May 27, 2001 at about 6:30 p.m.: Arzadon asked her to deliver not mandatorily require the judge to personally examine the
a book to an office located at another building but when she returned complainant and her witnesses. Instead, he may opt to: 1)personally
to their office, the lights had been turned off and the gate was closed. evaluate the report and supporting documents submitted by the
But she still went in to get her handbag. prosecutor or 2) he may disregard the prosecutor’s report and require
the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses. ->
On her way out, she saw Arzadon standing beside a parked van
holding a pipe. He told her to go near him and upon reaching his side, What the law requires as personal determination on the part of the
he threatened her with the pipe and forced her to lie on the pavement. judge is that he should not rely solely on the report of the investigating
He removed her pants and underwear, and inserted his penis into her prosecutor.
vagina. She wept and cried out for help but those were useless since
nobody was there. She didn’t report the incident at first because of
Arzadon’s threats but then she found out she’s preggy so she In this case, Judge Carbonell dismissed the case without taking into
eventually filed the complaint for rape. nd
consideration the June 11, 2003 Resolution of 2 Assistant Provincial
Prosecutor Georgina Hidalgo, the October 13, 2003 Resolution of the
AAA failed to appear for the 4 consecutive orders to take the witness
panel of prosecutors, and the July 1, 2005 Resolution of the
stand in order to satisfy the judge for the existence of probable cause
Department of Justice, all of which sustain a finding of probable cause
for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. Because of this, dismissed the
against Arzadon. Moreover, he failed to evaluate the evidence in
Case for lack of probable cause. He claims that under Section 2,
support thereof. Respondent judge’s finding of lack of probable cause
Article III of the 1987 Constitution, no warrant of arrest shall issue
was premised only on the complainant’s and her witnesses’ absence
except upon probable cause “to be determined personally by the judge
during the hearing scheduled by the respondent judge for the judicial
after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
determination of probable cause.
witnesses he may produce.
Petitioner narrated in detail the alleged rape incident both in her
Petitioner contends that the judge is not required to personally examine
. .
the complainant and her witnesses in satisfying himself of the Sinumpaang Salaysay and Complaint-Affidavit She attended several
existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest as clarificatory hearings that were conducted in the instant case. The
the documentary evidence and transcript of stenographic notes may transcript of stenographic notes of the hearing held on October 11,
sufficiently establish this. 2002 shows that she positively identified Arzadon as her assailant, and
the specific time and place of the incident. She also claimed that she
Respondent Judge Carbonell argues in his Comment that the finding of bore a child as a result of the rape and, in support of her contentions,
probable cause by the investigating prosecutor is not binding or presented the child and her birth certificate as evidence. In contrast,
Arzadon merely relied on the defense of alibi which is the weakest of
all defenses.

After a careful examination of the records, the SC found that there is


sufficient evidence to establish probable cause.

Thus, respondent Judge committed GAD in the dismissal. for lack of


probable cause on the ground that petitioner and her witnesses failed to
take the witness stand. Considering there is ample evidence and
sufficient basis on record to support a finding of probable cause, it was
unnecessary for him to take the further step of examining the petitioner
and her witnesses. Moreover, he erred in holding that petitioner’s
absences in the scheduled hearings were indicative of a lack of interest
in prosecuting the case. In fact, the records show that she has
relentlessly pursued the same.

Needless to say, a full-blown trial is to be preferred to ferret out the


truth. WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.
justification for an initial intrusion or otherwise properly in a position
from which he can view a particular order; (b) the officer must
2. UNILAB v. ISIP discover incriminating evidence inadvertently; and (c) it must be
immediately apparent to the police that the items they observe may be
FACTS: 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
UNILAB hired a private investigator to investigate a place purported were seized on plain view. It is not enough that the sealed boxes were
to be manufacturing fake UNILAB products, especially Revicon in the plain view of the NBI agents. However, the NBI failed to
multivitamins. The agent took some photographs where the clandestine present any of officers who were present when the warrant was
manufacturing operation was taking place. UNILAB then sought the enforced to prove that the the sealed boxes was discovered
help of the NBI, which thereafter filed an application for the issuance inadvertently, and that such boxes and their contents were
of search warrant in the RTC of Manila. After finding probable cause, incriminating and immediately apparent. It must be stressed that only
the court issued a search warrant directing the police to seize “finished the enforcing officers had personal knowledge whether the sealed
or unfinished products of UNILAB, particularly REVICON boxes and their contents thereof were incriminating and that they were
multivitamins.” No fake Revicon was however found; instead, sealed immediately apparent. There is even no showing that the NBI agents
boxes where seized, which, when opened contained 60 ml bottles of knew the contents of the sealed boxes before they were opened. In sum
Disudrin and 200mg tablets of Inoflox, both were brands used by then, the petitioner and the NBI failed to prove that the plain view
UNILAB. NBI prayed that some of the sized items be turned over to doctrine applies to the seized items.
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
right to object to the admission of said papers in evidence
3. Stonehill vs Diokno
belongs exclusively to the corporations, to whom the
FACTS:
seized effects belong, and may not be invoked by the
Respondents herein secured a total of 42 search warrants against
petitioners herein and/or the corporations of which they were officers, corporate officers in proceedings against them in their
to search “books of accounts, financial records, vouchers,
correspondence, receipts, ledgers, journals, portfolios, credit journals, individual capacity.
typewriters, and other documents and/or papers showing all business
transactions including disbursements receipts, balance sheets and
profit and loss statements and Bobbins (cigarette wrappers),” as “the
subject of the offense; stolen or embezzled and proceeds or fruits of
the offense,” or “used or intended to be used as the means of
committing the offense,” which is described in the applications
adverted to above as “violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and
Customs Laws, Internal Revenue (Code) and the Revised Penal Code.”

The petitioner contended that the search warrants are null and void as
their issuance violated the Constitution and the Rules of Court for
being general warrants.The documents, papers, and things seized under
the alleged authority of the warrants in question may be split into two
(2) major groups, namely: (a) those found and seized in the offices of
the aforementioned corporations,

and (b) those found and seized in the residences of petitioners herein.

ISSUE: Whether petitioners can validly assail the search warrant against the corporation.

HELD: No.As regards the first group, we hold that petitioners herein

have no cause of action to assail the legality of the contested warrants and of the seizures made in pursuance thereof, for the simple reason that said
corporations have their respective personalities, separate and distinct from the personality of herein petitioners, regardless of the amount of shares of stock or
of the interest of each of them in said corporations, and whatever the offices they hold therein may be. Indeed, it is well settled that the legality of a seizure can
be contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby, and that the

objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties. Consequently, petitioners herein may not validly objec
to the use in evidence against them of the documents, papers and things seized from the offices and premises of the corporations adverted to above, since the
4. Laud vs. People 5. Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines v. Asuncion
May 19, 1999Nature: Petition for certiorari and prohibition
ISSUE: Having been divested as Vice Executive Judge pursuant to Ponente: Panganiban, J.
Section 5, Chapter III of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, was the issuance of
Search Warrant No. 09-14407 by Judge Peralta an issuance by a de FACTS:
facto officer?
Before us is a petition for Certiorari and Prohibition praying for (1)
**Petitioner’s contention: the nullification of Search Warrant No. 799 (95) and the Orders dated
March 23, 1993 and August 3, 1995, issued by the Regional Trial
RULING: YES. Imposition of administrative penalties did operate to Court (RTC), Branch 104, of Quezon City; and (2) the issuance of
divest Judge Peralta’s authority to act as Vice-Executive Judge, it must temporary restraining order (TRO) or an injunction against State
be qualified that the abstraction of such authority would not, by and of Prosecutor Leo B. Dacera III, ordering him to desist proceeding with
itself, result in the invalidity of Search Warrant No. 09-14407 IS No. 95-167
considering that Judge Peralta may be considered to have made the
issuance as a de facto officer whose acts would, nonetheless, remain On January 25, 1995, Police Chief Inspector Napoleon B. Pascua
valid. applied for a search warrant before the said RTC of Quezon City,
staring:
The treatment of a de facto officer’s acts is premised on the reality that
third persons cannot always investigate the right of one assuming to 1. That the management of Paper Industries Corporation of the
hold an important office and, as such, have a right to assume that Philippines, located at PICOP compound, is in possession or ha[s] in
officials apparently qualified and in office are legally such. Public [its] control high powered firearms, ammunitions, explosives, which
interest demands that acts of persons holding, under color of title, an are the subject of the offense, or used or intended to be used in
office created by a valid statute be, likewise, deemed valid insofar as committing the offense, and which . . . are [being kept] and
the public – as distinguished from the officer in question – is conceal[ed] in the premises described;
concerned. Indeed, it is far more cogently acknowledged that the de
facto doctrine has been formulated, not for the protection of the de 2. That a Search Warrant should be issued to enable any agent of the
facto officer principally, but rather for the protection of the public and law to take possession and bring to the described properties
individuals who get involved in the official acts of persons discharging
the duties of an office without being lawful officers. 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 Suppress Evidence." On March 23, 1995,
the RTC issued the first contested Order which denied petitioners' for Pascua and Bacolod however, none of the aforementioned
motions. On August 3, 1995, the trial court rendered its second witnesses and policemen appeared before the trial court. Moreover, the
contested Order denying petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. applicant's participation in the hearing for the issuance of the search
warrant consisted only of introducing Witness Bacolod.
ISSUE: WON the search warrant issued was valid
The trial judge failed to propound questions, let alone probing
HELD: WHEREFORE, the instant petition for certiorari and questions, to the applicant and to his witnesses other than Bacolod.
prohibition is hereby GRANTED and Search Warrant No. 799 (95) Obviously, His Honor relied mainly on their affidavits. This Court has
accordingly declared NULL and VOID. The temporary restraining frowned on this practice in this language:
order issued by this Court on October 23, 1995 is hereby MADE
PERMANENT. No pronouncement as to costs. Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus not
sufficient. The examining Judge has to take depositions in writing of
RATIO: the complainant and the witnesses he may procedure and attach them
to the record. Such written deposition is necessary in order that the
The fundamental right against unreasonable and searches and seizures Judge may be able to properly determine the existence or non-
and the basic conditions for the issuance of a search warrant are laid existence of the probable cause, to hold liable for perjury the person
down in Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution. giving it if it will be found later that his declarations are false.
The requisites of a valid search warrant are: (1) probable cause is Bacolod's Testimony Pertained Not to Facts Personally Known to Him
present; (2) such presence is determined personally by the judge; (3)
the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce are When questioned by the judge, Bacolod stated merely that he believed
personally examined by the judge, in writing and under oath or that the PICOP security guards had no license to possess the subject
affirmation; (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on facts firearms. This, however, does not meet the requirement that a witness
personally known to them; and (5) the warrant specifically describes must testify on his personal knowledge, not belief.
the place to be searched and the things to be seized.( Section 3 and 4,
Rule 126 of the Rules of Court) Particularity of the Place to Be Searched

In the present case, the search warrant is invalid because (1) the trail In view of the manifest objective of the against unreasonable search,
court failed to examine personally the complainant and the other the Constitution to be searched only to those described in the warrant.
deponents; (2) SPO3 Cicero Bacolod, who appeared during the hearing Thus, this Court
for the issuance or the search warrant, had no personal knowledge that
petitioners were not licensed to possess the subject firearms; and (3) has held that "this constitutional right [i]s the embodiment of a
the place to be searched was not described with particularity. spiritual concept: the belief that to value the privacy of home and
person and to afford it constitutional protection against the long reach
No Personal Examination of the Witnesses of government is no less than to value human dignity, and that his
privacy must not be disturbed except in case of overriding social need,
Chief Inspector Pascua's application for a search warrant was and then only under stringent procedural
supported by (1) the joint Deposition of SPO3 Cicero S. Bacolod and
SPO2 Cecilio T. Moriro, (2) a summary of information and (3) safeguards." Additionally, the requisite of particularity is related to the
supplementary statements of Mario Enad and Felipe Moreno. Except probable cause requirement in that, at least under some circumstances,
the lack of a more specific description will make it apparent that there crime, proceeded to Benny Go’s said residence. The team opened the
has not been a sufficient showing to the magistrate that the described door of the house. Upon their entry, the raiding team met Jack Go,
items are to be found in particular place. Benny Go’s son. He is the only one present at the house at the time.
The policemen at once introduced themselves, informed Jack Go that
In the present case, the assailed search warrant failed to describe the they had a warrant for the search of the premises, and promptly
place with particularly. It simply authorizes a search of "the handcuffed him to a chair to restrain him. As Jack Go was the only one
aforementioned premises," but it did not specify such premises present at the house at the time they called on 2 baranggay kagawads,
Kagawads Gaspar Lazaro and Emmanuel Manalo to act as a witness
Seized Firearms and Explosives Inadmissible in Evidence on the said search. In the course of the search of the premises which
took place from 6:00 to 11:00 in the evening, they recovered one knot
Because the search warrant was procured in violation of the tied transparent plastic bag containing white crystalline substance from
Constitution and the Rules of Court, all the firearms, explosives and the drawer of a cabinet. They seized properties and objects even those
other materials seized were "inadmissible for any purpose in any which were not included in the warrant such as the passports, bank
proceeding." As the Court noted in an earlier case, the exclusion of books, checks, a typewriter, a check writer, several dry seals and stamp
unlawfully seized evidence was "the only practical means of enforcing pads, Chinese and Philippine currency and appellants Toyota Corolla
the constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and GLI car. When they were almost finished with their search, Benny Go
seizures." Verily, they are the "fruits of the poisonous tree." Without arrived at 9:30 in the evening and immediately, together with the two
this exclusionary rule, the constitutional right "would be so ephemeral witnesses, was made to sign the inventory receipt and affidavit of
and so neatly severed from its conceptual nexus with the freedom from orderly search. The Trial Court convicted Benny Go for violation of
all brutish means evidence means of coercing evidence . . .." the offense charged. Benny Go filed for an appeal. 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
6. People v Go
that were not included in the search warrant.
The search and seizure of articles must be limited to those which
are particularly described in the search warrant.
ISSUE: Whether or not the properties not included in the search
warrant may be returned to Benny Go
On April 28, 1999, SPO1 Fernandez, SPO1 Serquea and a confidential
informant conducted a test buy operation at the residence of Benny Go
HELD: The constitution protects individuals from unreasonable
at 1480 General Luna Street, Ermita, Manila during which they
searches and seizures. It requires that the articles to be seized shall be
purchased from him P1,500.00 worth of methamphetamine
particularly described in the warrant to limit the things to be seized to
hydrochloride (shabu). The police officers did not immediately arrest
those, and only those, particularly described in the search warrant (to
him. Instead, they applied for a Search Warrant for Go’s residence
leave the officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles
from RTC based on their firm belief that there was a large quantity of
they should seize) At the same time, the evidences seized such as the
illegal drugs in his house. On June 14, 1999, a raiding team, armed
assorted documents, passports, bankbooks, checks, check writer,
with a warrant commanding them to make an immediate search
typewriter, dry seals and stamp pads are not in the plain view of the
anytime of the day or night of Go’s residence and to seize and take
raiding team. Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the plain
possession of METAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE (Shabu),
view of an officer, who have acquired the right to search and seize in
weighing scale, other drug paraphernalias and proceeds of the above
the particular place described in the warrant, is in the position to of media representatives during the execution of the warrant. The
subject those objects to seizure and may be presented as evidence. officers and two media representatives entered the Wilson’s home at
6:45 AM, surprising Charles and Geraldine Wilson. Charles Wilson did
In the case at hand, plain view doctrine is not applicable to justify the not immediately realize that those persons who entered their house
seizure and retention of the questioned seized items. The things were police officers and so he yelled and curse at them. The police
belonging to Benny Go not specifically mentioned in the warrants officers, believing him to be the person sought by the warrant,
must be returned to him. Therefore, Benny Go is ACQUITTED of the immediately subdued him on the floor. Geraldine Wilson walked in
crime charged and is hereby ordered immediately RELEASED from and saw the officers restraining her husband and the Washington Post
confinement, unless he is lawfully held in custody for another cause. photographer took pictures of the incident. The Marshals and local
officers searched the house but did not found Dominic Wilson hence
**A complaint for alleged possession of instruments intended for the they left the residence. Pictures taken at the scene were never
commission of falsification under paragraph 2 of Article 176 of the published.
Revised Penal Code on the basis of dry seals and rubber stamps was Charles and Geraldine Wilson sued the law enforcement officers for
filed against Benny Go. Only after the Chinese embassy and Bureau of damages, contending that the officers violated their rights. The officers
Immigration and Deportation verify the seals and stamps when the moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The
nature of it was established and it was in fact counterfeited. Therefore, District Court rejected the motion for summary judgment so the
again plain view doctrine is not applicable. It is impossible for a respondents appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision,
policeman to determine at the very instance that the seals and stamps finding that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. The court
are counterfeited. However, since these objects have been certified as a found that it was not clearly established that allowing a ride-along
counterfeit by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, they may policy violated a person's Fourth Amendment rights. Wilson argued
not be returned and are hereby declared confiscated in favor of the that media's presence amounts to an invasion of privacy. A home is
State to be disposed of according to law. entitled to special privacy protection under the Fourth Amendment.
The warrants issued by the courts to apprehend a target authorized
7. Wilson v Layne only the presence of law enforcement officials and did not mention the
Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their presence of media representatives. On the other hand, the respondent
houses against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be contended that they should be granted qualified immunity since it was
violated not clearly established that the ride-along practice was unlawful.
Qualified immunity grants a liability shield to government officials Media ride-alongs facilitate law enforcement by helping them to
performing discretionary functions if their conduct does not discourage criminal activity, enhancing public confidence, and
violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a accurately recording the execution of warrants.
reasonable person should know of.
Issues:
On April 16, 1992, a team made up of U.S. Marshals and Montgomery WON law enforcement officials violate the Fourth Amendment when
County (MD.) Police executed a warrant to arrest Dominic Wilson, they allow the news media to ride-along during the execution of a
who had violated probation on a previous felony charge. His known warrant.
address was in Rockville, Maryland, home of his parents Charles and WON law enforcement officials are entitled to qualified immunity
Geraldine Wilson who are the plaintiffs in this case. The officers because such a violation was not clearly established by statute or
invited Washington Post reporter and photographer to accompany them common law.
although the arrest warrant did not make any mention of the presence
HELD: suspects. However, Watters did not know that one of the houses which
Yes, Fourth Amendment right was violated but officers are entitled to is the first to be searched had been sold to a man named Max Rettele.
qualified immunity. He had purchased the home and moved into it three months earlier
It violates the Fourth Amendment when the officers brought the with his girlfriend Judy Sadler and Sadler’s 17-year-old son Chase
members of the media into the residence of the Wilson’s during the Hall. Max Rettele, Judy Sadler and Chase Hall are Caucasians. The
execution of a search warrant. A person is entitled to a privacy in their deputies’, upon their arrival to the first house, announce their presence
home as well as the presence of a reporter is not related to the police's which awoke Rettele and Sadler. The deputies entered the bedroom
duties. However, the Fourth Amendment right was not clearly with guns drawn to Rettele and Sadler. Deputies ordered them to get
established at the time of the violation. The court stated that it is not out of their bed and to show their hands however they protested that
unreasonable for a police officer to think that it is lawful to bring a they were not wearing clothes. Rettele and Sadler were held at
reporter along while they are in their duty. Also, the court ruled that the gunpoint for one to two minutes before Rettele and Sadler were
officers were acting pursuant to an established Marshall policy and allowed to dress. By the time the deputies realized they had made a
hence had no reason to doubt its legality. **Dissenting Opinion: They mistake, they apologized to Rettele and Sadler. This case was filed by
agree with the Court that allowing a member of the media to enter a Rettele and Sadler, respectively and as guardians ad litem. Rettele and
person's home violates the Fourth Amendment. However, they believes Sadler alleged that the petitioners violated their Fourth Amendment
that this violation was clearly established before the incident and the rights by obtaining a warrant in reckless fashion and conducting an
officers should not receive qualified immunity. unreasonable search and detention. The District Court held that the
warrant was obtained by proper procedures, search was reasonable and
8. Los Angeles Country v. Rettele that any Fourth Amendment rights the deputies violated were not
clearly established and as a result, the deputies were entitled to
A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of qualified immunity. Respondents filed an appeal. They did not
the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a challenge the validity of the warrant but they did argue that the
peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property deputies had conducted the search in an unreasonable manner. The
described therein and bring it before the court. A search Court of Appeals concluded that the search and detention were
warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection “unnecessarily painful, degrading, or prolonged, and involved ‘an
with one specific offense to be determined personally by the undue invasion of privacy.” Also, the court held that a reasonable
judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the deputy should have known the search and detention were unlawful.
complainant and the witness he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized ISSUE: WON the act of the deputies constitute an unreasonable
which may be anywhere in the Philippines. manner of conducting a search.

Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department Deputy Dennis Watters HELD: No. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. The
investigated a fraud and identity-theft crime. There were four suspects court held that the search was reasonable because when the deputies
of the investigation and known to be African-Americans. Deputy ordered respondents from their bed, they had no way of knowing
Watters obtained a search warrant for two houses in Lancaster, whether the suspects who are African-American were elsewhere in the
California, where he believed he could find the suspects. The warrant house. The presence of some Caucasians in the residence did not
obtained by Watters authorized him to search the houses and the eliminate the possibility that the suspects lived there as well. The
suspects for documents and computer files. Watters informed the other deputies, as they search the house which they believed the suspects
deputies that they would be searching for three African-American stays and might be armed, possessed authority to secure the premises
before deciding whether to continue with the search. In executing a 148-D Peru Street, Better Living Subdivision, Parañaque, Metro
search warrant officers may take reasonable action to secure the Manila, unlicensed firearms specifically mentioned in the search
premises and to ensure their own safety and the efficacy of the search. warrant. (Baby armalite M-16; Shotgun, 12 g; pistol cal. 9mm; pistol
Such unreasonable actions include the use of excessive force that cal. 45 and with corresponding ammunitions). Armed with the warrant,
cause unnecessary pain or are imposed for a prolonged and the PNP CISC team, accompanied by a representative of the MTC
unnecessary period of time. Therefore, the orders by the deputies to judge and a brgy. security officer, went to Ortiz’s residence at about
Rettele and Sadler were permissible and necessary to protect their 7:30 P.M to search said premises. Ortiz’s wife and their child’s nanny
safety. In the case at hand, blankets and bedding can conceal a weapon were both present during the search, but neither consented to be a
so the deputies needed a moment to secure the room and ensure that witness to the search. The search resulted in the seizure unlicensed
other persons do not present a danger. The warrant obtained by the firearms and ammunition. After Ortiz’s wife signed a receipt for the
deputies is a valid warrant which was issued upon probable cause and seized firearms and ammunition, the search warrant was returned,
particularly described the place to be searched and the things to be executed and filed by the police with the issuing court. At the
seized. A warrant also serves as a protection to the deputies as long as preliminary investigation, the prosecutor ruled the warrantless search
they execute the wearrant in a reasonable manner. In conclusion, the done with Ortiz’s person and jeep in Makati is invalid for violating his
Fourth Amendment is not violated. constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.
However, the prosecutor found the search conducted in Parañaque is
valid. Ortiz moved for reinvestigation. Ortiz alleged that the dismissal
9. People v. CA of the charges against him in Makati also applies to the search
conducted in his house in Parañaque. However, the trial court denied
FACTS: Ortiz’s contention so he filed for reconsideration and deferral of
On August 13, 1992, PNP-Special Investigation Service Command arraignment, but said motions were likewise denied. Ortiz moved to
(PNP-CISC) were conducting a surveillance of suspected drug-pushing quash the search warrant on the grounds that he was not present when
activities at the Regine Condominium, Makati Avenue, Makati City. his house was searched since he was then detained at Camp Crame;
Among their targeted suspects was Valentino “Toto” Ortiz. Police that the search warrant was not shown to his wife; and that the search
officers saw Ortiz from his Cherokee jeep and noticed that he had a was conducted in violation of the witness-to-search rule. Again, the
suspiciously bulging pants pocket thus the police officers immediately trial court ruled in negative, denied the motion to quash of Ortiz for
moved in and accosted him. An unlicensed .25 caliber “Raven” lack of merit. And charged Ortiz with illegal possession of firearms.
automatic pistol with one magazine and seven rounds of live .25 The CA reversed trial court’s decision, holding as inadmissible in
caliber ammunition was obtained from Ortiz. Also, the police officers evidence the seized firearms and ammunition.
searched Ortiz’s vehicle which resulted in the retrieval of a sealed
cellophane packet of “shabu” from the compartment. The police then ISSUE: WON the CA make a mistake in holding that the firearms and
took private respondent into custody. Soon after Ortiz’s arrest, a search ammunition seized from Ortiz’s house are inadmissible as evidence for
warrant was obtained from the MTC of Parañaque commanding the being the fruits of an illegal search.
PNP officers “to make an immediate search at any reasonable hour of
day or night of the house/s, closed receptacles and premises above- HELD: YES. In this case, there is no illegal search.
described and forthwith seize and take possession” of the property “Sec. 8 of Rules of Court. Time of making search. – The warrant
subject of the offense. The search warrant was supported by the must direct that it be served in the day time, unless the affidavit
statements of two police officers who affirms that they had personal asserts that the property is on the person or in the place ordered to
knowledge that private respondent was keeping in his residence at be searched, in which case a direction may be inserted that it be
served at any time of the day or night. The general rule is that
search warrants must be served during the daytime. However, the Ortiz’s wife and their child’s nanny were both present during the
rule allows an exception, namely, a search at any reasonable hour search despite respondent’s absence. Hence, the search conducted by
of the day or night, when the application asserts that the property the police officers are legal.
is on the person or place ordered to be searched. In the instant
case, the judge issuing the warrant relied on the positive assertion
of the applicant and his witnesses that the firearms and B. (WARRANTLESS SEARCHES)
ammunition were kept at private respondent’s residence.
Evidently, the court issuing the warrant was satisfied that the Section 2, Article III of the Constitution - The right of the people to
affidavits of the applicants clearly satisfied the requirements of be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. The rule on issuance of a unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
search warrant allows for the exercise of judicial discretion in purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest
fixing the time within which the warrant may be served, subject to shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by
the statutory requirement fixing the maximum time for the the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
execution of a warrant. The inescapable conclusion is that the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
judge who issued the questioned warrant did not abuse his describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be
discretion in allowing a search “at any reasonable hour of the day seized.
or night.” Absent such abuse of discretion, a search conducted at Exclusionary Rule - Article III, Section 3(2), that "any evidence
night where so allowed, is not improper. obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding.
The general rule is that search warrants must be served in the daytime. Plain View Doctrine - Objects in the plain view of an officer who has
However, when the application asserts that the property is on the the right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure
person or place ordered to be searched, a search at any reasonable hour and may be presented as evidence.
of the day and night can be ordered. As to whether the time during
which the search was executed was unreasonable or not, the Supreme
Court stated that the exact time of the execution of the warrant should 10. PEOPLE vs LEANGSIRI
be left at the discretion of the law enforcement officers. Judicial notice
may be taken not just from the realities of law enforcement but also the FACTS: Accused Leangsiri was arrested at the arrival area of the
prevailing conditions in the place to be searched. As such, the SC Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA). He was in the act of
deemed that 7:30 PM was a reasonable time, taking notice that said bringing into the country 8,225.31 grams of heroin hidden under the
time in a suburban subdivision in Metro Manila in an hour at which the false bottom of a black suitcase. He informed the authorities that he
residents are still up and about. was to deliver the contraband to three (3) people at the Las Palmas
Hotel in Manila. The team and agents of the Bureau of Customs
“Search of house, room, or premises to be made in presence of proceeded to the Las Palmas Hotel, where they allowed Leangsiri to
two witnesses. – No search of a house, room, or any other check into Room 504 with the confiscated black suitcase containing
premises shall be made except in the presence of the lawful the heroin.
occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of At around eight oclock in the evening, two hours after checking
the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in in, Leangsiri received a telephone call from his contact. Leangsiri was
the same locality.”
told that the black suitcase would be picked up at about ten oclock that The Court held that the warrantless search made by the
night. Thereupon, the two NARCOM agents positioned themselves authorities on the accused apartment which was located a few blocks
inside the washroom, with its door opened a fraction to give them away from where she was arrested was illegal for being an untenable
visual access to the rest of the hotel room. violation, if not nullification, of the basic constitutional right and
At about ten p.m., Amidus co-appellants, Omogbolahan and guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Bhola, arrived at the hotel. As Amidu flashed a thumbs up sign to The inadmissibility of evidence obtained in a warrantless
them, they all headed for the elevator and went up to the fifth floor of search incident to a lawful arrest outside the suspect’s person and the
the hotel. They knocked on the door of Room 504. Leangsiri stood up premises under his immediate control admits of an exception. The
from the bed in which he sat, opened the door, and let the three exception obtains when the Plain View Doctrine applies.
appellants in. Leangsiri took the black suitcase and brought it to the The plain view doctrine is usually applied where a police
dining area of the room where appellants stood in full view of officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but
NARCOM agents Gapiangao and Balneg. Leangsiri opened the nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object.
suitcase and displayed its contents to his visitors. The extension of the original justification is legitimate only
Appellants briefly examined the black suitcase and two (2) where it is immediately apparent to the police that they have evidence
transparent plastic bags which contained the heroin. After the before them; the plain view doctrine may not be used to extend a
examination, Leangsiri closed the suitcase and handed it over to general exploratory search from one object to another until something
appellants. Appellants started to leave the hotel room with the incriminating at last emerges.
contraband when Gapiangao and Balneg barged out of the washroom, In the case at bar, appellants were arrested in Room 504 of the
identified themselves as NARCOM agents, and made the arrest. Las Palmas Hotel. The piece of paper bearing Leangsiris name was
Appellant Amidu, on the other hand, merely said she was obtained through a warrantless search of Room 413 of the same hotel,
staying in Room 413 of the same hotel. Accompanied by the hotels and found tucked within the pages of appellant Amidus telephone and
owner and security officer, Samala searched appellant Amidus room. address book. Clearly, the warrantless search is illegal and the piece of
Tucked within the pages of her telephone and address book was a paper bearing Leangsiris name cannot be admitted as evidence against
piece of paper with the name SUCHINDA LEANGSIRI written on it. appellants. The inadmissibility of this evidence will not, however,
The paper and Amidus other possessions were confiscated exculpate appellants. Its exclusion does not destroy the prosecution’s
case against appellants. The remaining evidence still established their
ISSUE: WON the piece of paper found in Amidus hotel room, with guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
the name SUCHINDA LEANGSIRI written on it, should not have
been admitted as an evidence. 11. VALEROSO vs CA

RULING: YES. The Revised Rules of Court provide that (a) person FACTS: The prosecution claims that Valeroso was arrested near the
lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything INP Central Police Station in Culiat, Quezon City, while he was about
which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense, without to board a tricycle. After placing Valeroso under arrest, the arresting
a search warrant. To absolutely limit a warrantless search of a person officers bodily searched him, and they found One (1) cal. 38 "Charter
who is lawfully arrested to his or her person at the time of an incident Arms" revolver bearing serial no. 52315 with five (5) live ammo
to his or her arrest and to dangerous weapons or anything which may without first having secured the necessary license/permit issued by the
be used as proof of the commission of the offense. Such warrantless proper authorities.
search obviously cannot be made in a place other than the place of The defense, on the other hand, insists that Valeroso was
arrest. arrested inside the boarding house of his children. After serving the
warrant of arrest (allegedly for kidnapping with ransom), some of the 8. Search of vessels and aircraft; [and]
police officers searched the boarding house and forcibly opened a 9. Inspection of buildings and other premises for the enforcement of
cabinet where they discovered the subject firearm. fire, sanitary and building regulations.
In the exceptional instances where a warrant is not necessary to
ISSUE: WON Valeroso’s constitutional right against illegal search and effect a valid search or seizure, what constitutes a reasonable or
seizure was violated. unreasonable search or seizure is purely a judicial question,
determinable from the uniqueness of the circumstances involved,
RULING: YES. Keeping in mind that substantial rights must including the purpose of the search or seizure, the presence or absence
ultimately reign supreme over technicalities, this Court is swayed to of probable cause, the manner in which the search and seizure was
reconsider. made, the place or thing searched, and the character of the articles
The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is secured procured.
by Section 2, Article III of the Constitution. From this constitutional For one, the warrantless search could not be justified as an
provision, it can readily be gleaned that, as a general rule, the incident to a lawful arrest. Searches and seizures incident to lawful
procurement of a warrant is required before a law enforcer can validly arrests are governed by Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court,
search or seize the person, house, papers, or effects of any individual. which reads:
To underscore the significance the law attaches to the fundamental SEC. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. – A person lawfully
right of an individual against unreasonable searches and seizures, the arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which
Constitution succinctly declares in Article III, Section 3(2), that "any may have been used or constitute proof in the commission of an
evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be offense without a search warrant.
inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding." When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the arresting officer
The above proscription is not, however, absolute. The to search the person arrested in order to remove any weapon that the
following are the well-recognized instances where searches and latter might use in order to resist arrest or effect his escape. Otherwise,
seizures are allowed even without a valid warrant: the officer’s safety might well be endangered, and the arrest itself
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest; frustrated. In addition, it is entirely reasonable for the arresting officer
2. [Seizure] of evidence in "plain view." The elements are: a) a prior to search for and seize any evidence on the arrestee’s person in order to
valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police prevent its concealment or destruction.
are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties; b) the evidence Moreover, in lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty and the
was inadvertently discovered by the police who have the right to be right of the apprehending officers to conduct a warrantless search not
where they are; c) the evidence must be immediately apparent; and d) only on the person of the suspect, but also in the permissible area
"plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further search; within the latter’s reach. Otherwise stated, a valid arrest allows the
3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the government, seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons either on the person of the
the vehicle’s inherent mobility reduces expectation of privacy one arrested or within the area of his immediate control. The phrase
especially when its transit in public thoroughfares furnishes a highly "within the area of his immediate control" means the area from within
reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant which he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible
committed a criminal activity; evidence. A gun on a table or in a drawer in front of one who is
4. Consented warrantless search; arrested can be as dangerous to the arresting officer as one concealed
5. Customs search; in the clothing of the person arrested.
6. Stop and Frisk; From the foregoing narration of facts, we can readily conclude
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances. that the arresting officers served the warrant of arrest without any
resistance from Valeroso. They placed him immediately under their On the other hand, petitioner testified for himself and raised the
control by pulling him out of the bed, and bringing him out of the defense of planting of evidence and extortion.
room with his hands tied. To be sure, the cabinet which, according to
Valeroso, was locked, could no longer be considered as an "area within ISSUE: WON the search and seizure of the alleged subject shabu is
his immediate control" because there was no way for him to take any illegal.
weapon or to destroy any evidence that could be used against him.
Clearly, the search made was illegal, a violation of Valeroso’s RULING: First, there was no valid arrest of petitioner. When he
right against unreasonable search and seizure. Consequently, the was flagged down for committing a traffic violation, he was not, ipso
evidence obtained in violation of said right is inadmissible in evidence facto and solely for this reason, arrested. Arrest is the taking of a
against him. person into custody in order that he or she may be bound to answer for
the commission of an offense. It is effected by an actual restraint of the
12. LUZ vs. PEOPLE person to be arrested or by that person’s voluntary submission to the
custody of the one making the arrest. Neither the application of actual
FACTS: PO2 Emmanuel L. Alteza, who was then assigned at the Sub- force, manual touching of the body, or physical restraint, nor a formal
Station 1 of the Naga City Police Station as a traffic enforcer, declaration of arrest, is required. It is enough that there be an intention
substantially testified that on March 10, 2003 at around 3:00 oclock in on the part of one of the parties to arrest the other, and that there be an
the morning, he saw the accused, who was coming from the direction intent on the part of the other to submit, under the belief and
of Panganiban Drive and going to Diversion Road, Naga City, driving impression that submission is necessary.
a motorcycle without a helmet; that this prompted him to flag down Under R.A. 4136, or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code,
the accused for violating a municipal ordinance which requires all the general procedure for dealing with a traffic violation is not the
motorcycle drivers to wear helmet (sic) while driving said motor arrest of the offender, but the confiscation of the driver’s license of the
vehicle; that he invited the accused to come inside their sub-station latter:
since the place where he flagged down the accused is almost in front of At the time that he was waiting for PO3 Alteza to write his
the said sub-station; that while he and SPO1 Rayford Brillante were citation ticket, petitioner could not be said to have been under arrest.
issuing a citation ticket for violation of municipal ordinance, he There was no intention on the part of PO3 Alteza to arrest him, deprive
noticed that the accused was uneasy and kept on getting something him of his liberty, or take him into custody. Prior to the issuance of the
from his jacket; that he was alerted and so, he told the accused to take ticket, the period during which petitioner was at the police station may
out the contents of the pocket of his jacket as the latter may have a be characterized merely as waiting time. In fact, as found by the trial
weapon inside it; that the accused obliged and slowly put out the court, PO3 Alteza himself testified that the only reason they went to
contents of the pocket of his jacket which was a nickel-like tin or metal the police sub-station was that petitioner had been flagged down
container about two (2) to three (3) inches in size, including two (2) almost in front of that place. Hence, it was only for the sake of
cellphones, one (1) pair of scissors and one (1) Swiss knife; that upon convenience that they were waiting there. There was no intention to
seeing the said container, he asked the accused to open it; that after the take petitioner into custody.
accused opened the container, he noticed a cartoon cover and It also appears that, according to City Ordinance No. 98-012,
something beneath it; and that upon his instruction, the accused spilled which was violated by petitioner, the failure to wear a crash helmet
out the contents of the container on the table which turned out to be while riding a motorcycle is penalized by a fine only. Under the Rules
four (4) plastic sachets, the two (2) of which were empty while the of Court, a warrant of arrest need not be issued if the information or
other two (2) contained suspected shabu. charge was filed for an offense penalized by a fine only. It may be
stated as a corollary that neither can a warrantless arrest be made for search; that is, the consent must be unequivocal, specific, intelligently
such an offense. given and uncontaminated by any duress or coercion. While the
This ruling does not imply that there can be no arrest for a prosecution claims that petitioner acceded to the instruction of PO3
traffic violation. Certainly, when there is an intent on the part of the Alteza, this alleged accession does not suffice to prove valid and
police officer to deprive the motorist of liberty, or to take the latter into intelligent consent. In fact, the RTC found that petitioner was merely
custody, the former may be deemed to have arrested the motorist. In told to take out the contents of his pocket.
this case, however, the officers issuance (or intent to issue) a traffic Whether consent to the search was in fact voluntary is a
citation ticket negates the possibility of an arrest for the same question of fact to be determined from the totality of all the
violation. circumstances. Relevant to this determination are the following
This Court has held that at the time a person is arrested, it shall characteristics of the person giving consent and the environment in
be the duty of the arresting officer to inform the latter of the reason for which consent is given: (1) the age of the defendant; (2) whether the
the arrest and must show that person the warrant of arrest, if any. defendant was in a public or a secluded location; (3) whether the
Persons shall be informed of their constitutional rights to remain silent defendant objected to the search or passively looked on; (4) the
and to counsel, and that any statement they might make could be used education and intelligence of the defendant; (5) the presence of
against them. It may also be noted that in this case, these constitutional coercive police procedures; (6) the defendants belief that no
requirements were complied with by the police officers incriminating evidence would be found; (7) the nature of the police
only after petitioner had been arrested for illegal possession of questioning; (8) the environment in which the questioning took place;
dangerous drugs. and (9) the possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person
If it were true that petitioner was already deemed arrested when consenting. It is the State that has the burden of proving, by clear and
he was flagged down for a traffic violation and while he waiting for his positive testimony,that the necessary consent was obtained, and was
ticket, then there would have been no need for him to be arrested for a freely and voluntarily given. In this case, all that was alleged was that
second time after the police officers allegedly discovered the drugs as petitioner was alone at the police station at three in the morning,
he was already in their custody. accompanied by several police officers. These circumstances weigh
Second, there being no valid arrest, the warrantless search heavily against a finding of valid consent to a warrantless search.
that resulted from it was likewise illegal. The following are the Neither does the search qualify under the stop and frisk rule.
instances when a warrantless search is allowed: (i) a warrantless search While the rule normally applies when a police officer observes
incidental to a lawful arrest; (ii) search of evidence in plain view; (iii) suspicious or unusual conduct, which may lead him to believe that a
search of a moving vehicle; (iv) consented warrantless search; (v) criminal act may be afoot, the stop and frisk is merely a limited
customs search; (vi) a stop and frisk search; and (vii) exigent and protective search of outer clothing for weapons.
emergency circumstances. None of the above-mentioned instances, The foregoing considered, petitioner must be acquitted. While
especially a search incident to a lawful arrest, are applicable to this he may have failed to object to the illegality of his arrest at the earliest
case. opportunity, a waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not,
It must be noted that the evidence seized, although alleged to however, mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized
be inadvertently discovered, was not in plain view. It was actually during the illegal warrantless arrest.
concealed inside a metal container inside petitioner’s pocket. Clearly, The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure
the evidence was not immediately apparent. in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable
Neither was there a consented warrantless search. Consent to a searches and seizures. Any evidence obtained in violation of said right
search is not to be lightly inferred, but shown by clear and convincing shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. While the
evidence. It must be voluntary in order to validate an otherwise illegal power to search and seize may at times be necessary to the public
welfare, still it must be exercised and the law implemented without RULING: NO. The body search as well as the warrantless arrest is not
contravening the constitutional rights of citizens, for the enforcement lawful. A valid warrantless arrest which justifies a subsequent search is
of no statute is of sufficient importance to justify indifference to the one that is carried out under the parameters of Section 5(a), Rule 113
basic principles of government. of the Rules of Court which requires that the apprehending officer must
have been spurred by probable cause to arrest a person caught in
13. MARTINEZ vs PEOPLE flagrante delicto. To be sure the term probable cause has been
understood to mean a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by
FACTS: At around 9:15 in the evening of December 29, 2007, the circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant a cautious
police officers assigned to the Station Anti-Illegal Drugs (SAID) man's belief that the person accused is guilty of the offense with which
Section of the Malate Police Station 9 (Police Station 9), conducted a he is charged. Specifically with respect to arrests, it is such facts and
routine foot patrol along Balingkit Street, Malate, Manila. In the circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent
process, they heard a man shouting "Putangina mo! Limangdaan na man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person
ba ito?" For purportedly violating Section 844 of the Revised sought to be arrested. In this light, the determination of the existence or
Ordinance of the City of Manila (Manila City Ordinance) which absence of probable cause necessitates a re-examination of the factual
punishes breaches of the peace, the man, later identified as Ramon, incidents.
was apprehended and asked to empty his pockets. In the course
thereof, the police officers were able to recover from him a small As found in jurisprudence, the traditional exceptions are customs
transparent plastic sachet containing white crystalline substance searches, searches of moving vehicles, seizure of evidence in plain
suspected to be shabu. Consequently, Ramon was charged with view, consented searches, "stop and frisk" measures and searches
possession of dangerous drugs under Section 11(3), Article II of RA incidental to a lawful arrest. This last-mentioned exception is of
9165 particular significance to this case and thus, necessitates further
In defense, Ramon denied the charge and gave his version of disquisition.
the incident. He narrated that on December 29, 2007, at around 4:00 in To determine if the body search is lawful we must first determine if the
the afternoon, while walking along Balingkit Street to borrow a arrest was lawful. To elucidate, it cannot be said that the act of
welding machine from one Paez Garcia, a man in civilian clothing shouting in a thickly-populated place, with many people conversing
approached and asked him if he is Ramon Goco. Upon affirming his with each other on the street, would constitute any of the acts
identity, he was immediately handcuffed by the man who eventually punishable under Section 844 of the Manila City Ordinance as above-
introduced himself as a police officer. Together, they boarded a tricycle quoted. Ramon was not making or assisting in any riot, affray,
(sidecar) where the said officer asked him if he was carrying illegal disorder, disturbance, or breach of the peace; he was not assaulting,
drugs. Despite his denial, he was still brought to a precinct to be beating or using personal violence upon another; and, the words he
detained. Thereafter, PO2 Soque propositioned Ramon and asked for allegedly shouted – "Putanginamo! Limangdaannabaito?" –are not
₱20,000.00 in exchange for his release. When Ramon’s wife, Amalia slanderous, threatening or abusive, and thus, could not have tended to
Goco, was unable to produce the ₱20,000.00 which PO2 Soque had disturb the peace or excite a riot considering that at the time of the
asked for, he (Ramon) was brought to the Manila City Hall for inquest incident, Balingkit Street was still teeming with people and alive with
proceedings. activity.
Consequently, as it cannot be said that Ramon was validly arrested the
ISSUE: WON the warrantless arrest of Ramon justifies a subsequent warantless search that resulted from it was also illegal. Thus, the
body search. subject shabu purportedly seized from Ramon is inadmissible in
evidence for being the proverbial fruit of the poisonous tree as
mandated by the above discussed constitutional provision. In this RULING: NO. A warrantless search is reasonable only if it falls
regard, considering that the confiscated shabu is the very corpus delicit within a specific exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant
of the crime charged, Ramon's acquital should therefore come as a requirement. The well-established exception at issue here applies when
matter of course. a warrantless search is conducted incident to a lawful arrest.
Digital data stored on a cell phone cannot itself be used as a
14. RILEY vs. CALIFORNIA weapon to harm an arresting officer or to effectuate the arrestee’s
escape. Officers may examine the phone’s physical aspects to ensure
FACTS: Riley was stopped for a traffic violation, which eventually that it will not be used as a weapon, but the data on the phone can
led to his arrest on weapons charges. An officer searching Riley endanger no one.
incident to the arrest seized a cell phone from Riley’s pants pocket. Although an individual’s privacy rights are diminished once
The officer accessed information on the phone and noticed the arrested, it should not be treated as a complete deprivation. The Court
repeated use of a term associated with a street gang. At the police then distinguishes the search of a cigarette pack from the privacy
station two hours later, a detective specializing in gangs further invasion at issue regarding a search of a cell phone or residence and
examined the phone’s digital contents. Based in part on photographs determines such a search is not constitutional. The search of the data
and videos that the detective found, the State charged Riley in on a cell phone is a major invasion of privacy due to the quality and
connection with a shooting that had occurred a few weeks earlier and quantity of information stored on phones.
sought an enhanced sentence based on Riley’s gang membership. Riley The Court also concludes the government’s assertion that
moved to suppress all evidence that the police had obtained from his under Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009), a warrantless search of a
cell phone. The trial court denied the motion, and Riley was convicted. cell phone is justified when the cell phone is reasonably believed to
The California Court of Appeal affirmed. contain evidence of the crime of arrest, applies to the search of
Wurie was arrested after police observed him participate in an vehicles and is inapplicable to a cell phone. Absent a warrant or
apparent drug sale. At the police station, the officers seized a cell demonstration of exigent circumstances, the government may not
phone from Wurie’s person and noticed that the phone was receiving conduct a search of a cell phone incident to arrest.
multiple calls from a source identified as “my house” on its external But the Court’s holding is not that the information on a cell
screen. The officers opened the phone, accessed its call log, phone is immune from search; it is that a warrant is generally required
determined the number associated with the “my house” label, and before a search. The warrant requirement is an important component of
traced that number to what they suspected was Wurie’s apartment. the Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, and warrants may be
They secured a search warrant and found drugs, a firearm and obtained with increasing efficiency. In addition, although the search
ammunition, and cash in the ensuing search. Wurie was then charged incident to arrest exception does not apply to cell phones, the
with drug and firearm offenses. He moved to suppress the evidence continued availability of the exigent circumstances exception may
obtained from the search of the apartment. The District Court denied give law enforcement a justification for a warrantless search in
the motion, and Wurie was convicted. The First Circuit reversed the particular cases.
denial of the motion to suppress and vacated the relevant convictions.
15. BIRCHFIELD vs. NORTH DAKOTA
ISSUE: WON the police can, with a warrant, search digital
information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been BACKGROUND: To fight the serious harms inflicted by drunk
arrested. drivers, all States have laws that prohibit motorists from driving with a
blood alcohol concentration (BAC) exceeding a specified level. BAC
is typically determined through a direct analysis of a blood sample or
by using a machine to measure the amount of alcohol in a person’s breath tests when someone is arrested on suspicion of driving while
breath. To help secure drivers’ cooperation with such testing, the States intoxicated.
have also enacted “implied consent” laws that require drivers to submit However, the Court said, blood tests are different. They are
to BAC tests. Originally, the penalty for refusing a test was suspension significantly more invasive than breathing into a tube. They require
of the motorist’s license. Over time, however, States have toughened piercing the skin and extracting a part of a person’s body. A blood
their drunk-driving laws, imposing harsher penalties on recidivists and sample can be preserved and gives law enforcement a DNA sample.
drivers with particularly high BAC levels. Because motorists who fear This supplies much more information than a breath test, which shows
these increased punishments have strong incentives to reject testing, someone’s BAC (blood-alcohol content) level. The Court decided that
some States, including North Dakota and Minnesota, now make it a the government’s interest in stopping drunk driving does not outweigh
crime to refuse to undergo testing. the privacy concerns of blood tests. Therefore, police must get a
warrant before drawing blood from someone who has been arrested on
FACTS: In these cases, all three petitioners were arrested on drunk- suspicion of driving drunk.
driving charges. The state trooper who arrested petitioner Danny Therefore, motorists may be criminally punished for refusing to
Birchfield advised him of his obligation under North Dakota law to take a breath test based on implied-consent laws, but not for blood
undergo BAC testing and told him, as state law requires, that refusing tests. Birchfield was charged with refusing a blood test, and this
to submit to a blood test could lead to criminal punishment. Birchfield criminal charge is reversed.
refused to let his blood be drawn and was charged with a misdemeanor
violation of the refusal statute. He entered a conditional guilty plea but
argued that the Fourth Amendment prohibited criminalizing his refusal
to submit to the test. The State District Court rejected his argument,
and the State Supreme Court affirmed.

ISSUE: WON the Fourth Amendment permits warrantless breath tests


and warrantless blood tests incident to arrests for drunk driving.
In the absence of a warrant, can a state with an implied consent
law make it a crime for a driver to refuse to take a breath or blood test
to detect alcohol or drugs in the driver’s blood?

RULING: The Court held that the Fourth Amendment permits


warrantless breath tests upon arrests for drunk drinking, but does not
permit warrantless blood tests. The decision noted the different
impacts of both tests on an individual’s privacy. The majority said that
breath tests do not raise privacy concerns because there is barely a
physical intrusion. People must breathe to stay alive. So, requiring an
arrestee to exhale into a machine is not inconvenient or embarrassing,
nor does it leave any DNA samples with the government. Given the
small impact on privacy, and the government’s strong interest in
keeping highways safe, the Fourth Amendment allows warrantless
security by searching him for weapons in the course of that
16. PEOPLE VS. SALANGUIT  Plain View Doctrine investigation?
 The search warrant authorized the seizure of shabu, not  “it is urged that distinctions should be made between a "stop"
marijuana and an "arrest" (or a "seizure" of a person), and between a
 Seizure of the latter (marijuana) is being justified by the “plain "frisk" and a "search." Thus, it is argued, the police should be
view doctrine” of the searching party which is being contested allowed to "stop" a person and detain him briefly for
by accused-appellant, Salanguit questioning upon suspicion that he may be connected with
Prior justification and Discovery by Inadvertance criminal activity. Upon suspicion that the person may be
 Once a valid portion of the search warrant has been executed, armed, the police should have the power to "frisk" him for
the plain view doctrine can no longer provide any basis for weapons. If the "stop" and the "frisk" give rise to probable
admitting the other items subsequently found cause to believe that the suspect has committed a crime, then
 The location of the shabu was indicated in the warrant, thus the police should be empowered to make a formal "arrest," and
known to the police operatives = reasonable to assume that a full incident "search" of the person. This scheme is justified
police found the shabu first before the marijuana (and the in part upon the notion that a "stop" and a "frisk" amount to a
marijuana bricks are packed/wrapped in newspaper) mere "minor inconvenience and petty indignity," which can
Apparent Illegality of the evidence properly be imposed upon the citizen in the interest of effective
 Marijuana bricks were wrapped in newspaper = could not have law enforcement on the basis of a police officer's suspicion.
been readily discernible as marijuana = hence an inadmissible (explanation nung doctrine used in the case)
evidence  The crux of this case, however, is not the propriety of Officer
 Nonetheless, confiscation of the drug must be upheld McFadden's taking steps to investigate petitioner's suspicious
behavior, but, rather, whether there was justification for
17. TERRY VS. OHIO  Stop and Frisk Exception McFadden's invasion of Terry's personal security by searching
 A policeman of 30 years in service patrol (McFadden) observed him for weapons in the course of that investigation. We are
2 strangers (Terry and Chilton) along with a another man now concerned with more than the governmental interest in
walking back and forth on a street corner, passing by a store for investigating crime; in addition, there is the more immediate
about 24 times  McFadden approached the 2 for their interest of the police officer in taking steps to assure himself
suspicious behavior (day light robbery which may involve use that the person with whom he is dealing is not armed with a
of weapon)  McFadden asked their names and the two weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against
answered mumbling  officer (McFadden) patted down their him. Certainly it would be unreasonable to require that
outside clothes, found but unable to remove a pistol and police officers take unnecessary risks in the performance of
ordered the two to get inside a store and again ordered them to their duties. American criminals have a long tradition of
face the wall, the officer seized a revolver from Chilton’s outer armed violence, and every year in this country many law
garments enforcement officers are killed in the line of duty, and
 ISSUES: Is the right to personal security violated by an thousands more are wounded. Virtually all of these deaths and
unreasonable search and seizure? Whether there was a substantial portion of the injuries are inflicted with guns and
justification for McFadden’s invasion of Terry’s personal knives.
 In view of these facts, we cannot blind ourselves to the need for Consent to a search is not to be lightly inferred, but shown by
law enforcement officers to protect themselves and other clear and convincing evidence. -- Consent must also be
prospective victims of violence in situations where they may voluntary inorder to validate an illegal search; that is, the
lack probable cause for an arrest. When an officer is justified consent must be unequivocal, specific, intelligently given, and
in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior uncontaminated by any duress or coercion.
he is investigating at close range is armed and presently
dangerous to the officer or to others, it would appear to be  Petitioner Danilo Villanueva was charged with violation of
clearly unreasonable to deny the officer the power to take Section 11, Article II of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9165 or The
necessary measures to determine whether the person is, in Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
fact, carrying a weapon and to neutralize the threat of  4 policemen + a complainant went to the house of Danilo. They
physical harm informed Danilo that there was a complaint filed by Brian
 The actions of Terry and Chilton were consistent with Resco against him for allegedly shooting the complainant in
McFadden's hypothesis that these men were contemplating a Navotas.
daylight robbery -- which, it is reasonable to assume, would be  They invited him to the police station. There, he was subjected
likely to involve the use of weapons -- and nothing in their to a body search and, in the process, a plastic sachet of shabu
conduct from the time he first noticed them until the time he (0.63g) was recovered from the left pocket of his pants.
confronted them and identified himself as a police officer gave  The RTC of Caloocan convicted him of the offenses charged –
him sufficient reason to negate that hypothesis. CA affirmed RTC’s decision.
 The scope of the search in this case presents no serious  Issue: W/N THERE IS ILLEGALITY IN THE ARREST
problem in light of these standards. Officer McFadden patted OF THE POLICE OFFICERS IN THE HANDLING OF
down the outer clothing of petitioner and his two companions. THE CONFISCATED DRUG.
He did not place his hands in their pockets or under the outer  Held: YES, Accused-appellant is estopped from questioning
surface of their garments until he had felt weapons, and then he the legality of his arrest. He was arrested without a warrant.
merely reached for and removed the guns. He never did invade The warrantless search conducted is not among those allowed
Katz' person beyond the outer surfaces of his clothes, since he by law.
discovered nothing in his pat-down which might have been a  Jurisprudence is replete with pronouncements on when a
weapon. Officer McFadden confined his search strictly to what warrantless search can be conducted. These searches include:
was minimally necessary to learn whether the men were armed (1) search of a moving vehicle; (2) seizure in plain view; (3)
and to disarm them once he discovered the weapons. He did customs search; (4) waiver or consented search; (5) stop-and-
not conduct a general exploratory search for whatever frisk situation; (6) search incidental to a lawful arrest and (7)
evidence of criminal activity he might find. *IMPORTANT exigent and emergency circumstance.
 The search made was not among the enumerated instances.
While this type may seemingly fall under the consented search
exception, consent to a search is not to be lightly inferred, but
19. VILLANUEVA V. PEOPLE  shown by clear and convincing evidence.
 Consent must also be voluntary inorder to validate an illegal  Extensive Search- warrantless search is only valid if there is
search; that is, the consent must be unequivocal, specific, probable cause
intelligently given, and uncontaminated by any duress or  Vehicle looking suspicious because of it being covered with
coercion. kakawati leaves = does NOT constitute probable cause which
 In this case, petitioner was merely "ordered" to take out the could justify the conduct of a search without warrant
contents of his pocket. Hence, the confiscated item is  + there was no tip or confidential report about an incident
inadmissible in evidence consonant with Article III, Section carrying of stolen cable wires
3(2) of the 1987 Constitution: "Any evidence obtained in  Caballes acquitted of the crime of charged (theft).
violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible
for any purpose in any proceeding."
21. DELA CRUZ VS. PEOPLE
 The decisions of RTC and CA were set aside and Petitioner - Routine baggage inspections conducted by port authorities,
was acquitted. although done without search warrants, are not
20. CABALLES VS. CA  Search of Moving Vehicle unreasonable searches per se. Constitutional provisions
 About 9:15 p.m. 2 policemen, while on a routine patrol in protecting privacy should not be so literally understood so
Barangay Sampalucan, Pagsanjan, Laguna, spotted a as to deny reasonable safeguards to ensure the safety of the
passenger jeep. unusually covered with "kakawati" leaves. traveling public.
Suspecting that the jeep was loaded with smuggled goods, the  Dela Cruz was an on-the-job trainee of an inter-island vessel.
two police officers flagged down the vehicle. The jeep was He frequently traveled, "coming back and forth taking a
driven by appellant. When asked what was loaded on the jeep, vessel." At around 12:00 noon, Dela Cruz was at a pier of the
he did not answer; he appeared pale and nervous. Cebu Domestic Port to go home to Iloilo. While buying a
With appellant's consent, the police officers checked the cargo ticket, he allegedly left his bag on the floor with a porter. It
and they discovered bundles of 3.08 mm took him around 15 minutes to purchase a ticket. After, Dela
aluminum/galvanized conductor wires exclusively owned by Cruz proceeded to the entrance of the terminal and placed his
National Power Corporation (NPC). The conductor wires bag on the x-ray scanning machine for inspection. The
weighed 700 kilos and valued at P55, 244.45. Noceja asked operator of the x-ray machine saw firearms inside Dela
appellant where the wires came from and appellant answered Cruz’s bag. Cutie Pie Flores (Flores) was the x-ray machine
that they came from Cavinti, a town approximately 8 operator-on-duty, saw the impression of what appeared to be
kilometers away from Sampalucan. Thereafter, appellant and three firearms inside Dela Cruz’s bag. Upon seeing the
the vehicle with the high-voltage wires were brought to the suspected firearms, she called the attention of port personnel,
Pagsanjan Police Station. Danilo Cabale took pictures of the Igot who was the baggage inspector then. Dela Cruz was asked
appellant and the jeep loaded with the wires which were turned whether he was the owner of the bag which he answered in the
over to the Police Station Commander of Pagsanjan, Laguna. affirmative and consented to Igot’s manual inspection of the
Appellant was incarcerated for 7 days in the Municipal jail. bag.
 Routine inspection- does not violate of an individual’s right  Port Police Officer Abregana was on duty at the terminal of the
against unreasonable search Cebu Domestic Port in Pier when his attention was called by
Igot. Igot told Officer Abregana that there were firearms in a find the search conducted by the airport authorities reasonable
bag owned by a certain person. and, therefore, not violative of his constitutional rights.  The
 Dela Cruz admitted that he was owner of the bag. The bag reason behind it is that there is a reasonable reduced
was then inspected and the following items were found inside: expectation of privacy when coming into airports or ports of
three (3) revolvers; NBI clearance; seaman’s book; other travel. Persons may lose the protection of the search and
personal items; and four (4) live ammunitions placed inside the seizure clause by exposure of their persons or property to the
cylinder. When asked whether he had the proper documents public in a manner reflecting a lack of subjective expectation of
for the firearms, Dela Cruz answered in the negative. privacy, which expectation society is prepared to recognize as
reasonable. (Same sa People vs. Johnson) Such recognition is
 RTC and CA: GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of implicit in airport security procedures. With increased concern
possessing unlicensed firearms under Commission on over airplane hijacking and terrorism has come increased
Elections Resolution No. 7764 in relation to Section 261 of security at the nation’s airports. Passengers attempting to board
Batas Pambansa Blg. 881 during the 2007 election period. an aircraft routinely pass through metal detectors; their carry-
 ISSUES: First, whether petitioner Erwin Libo-on Dela Cruz on baggage as well as checked luggage are routinely subjected
was in possession of the illegal firearms within the meaning of to x-ray scans. Should these procedures suggest the presence of
the Commission on Elections Resolution No. 7764, in relation suspicious objects, physical searches are conducted to
to Section 261 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 881; Second, whether determine what the objects are. There is little question that such
petitioner waived his right against unreasonable searches and searches are reasonable, given their minimal intrusiveness, the
seizures; and Lastly, assuming that there was no waiver, gravity of the safety interests involved, and the reduced privacy
whether there was a valid search and seizure in this case. expectations associated with airline travel. Indeed, travelers are
 First issue more on Rules of Court, kaya 2 nd and 3rd issue tayo often notified through airport public address systems, signs and
hehe notices in their airline tickets that they are subject to search
 The Cebu Port Authority has adopted security measures and, if any prohibited materials or substances are found, such
imposed by the Office for Transportation Security, including would be subject to seizure. These announcements place
the National Security Programme for Sea Transport and passengers on notice that ordinary constitutional protections
Maritime Infrastructure. It is clothed with authority by the state against warrantless searches and seizures do not apply to
to oversee the security of persons and vehicles within its ports. routine airport procedures
While there is a distinction between port personnel and port  Was the search rendered unreasonable at the second point of
police officers in this case, considering that port personnel are intrusion—when the baggage inspector opened petitioner’s
not necessarily law enforcers, both should be considered bag and called the attention of the port police officer?
agents of government under Article III of the Constitution. The  We rule in the negative. = The port personnel’s actions
actions of port personnel during routine security checks at ports proceed from the authority and policy to ensure the safety of
have the color of a state-related function. travelers and vehicles within the port. At this point, petitioner
 It is axiomatic that a reasonable search is not to be determined already submitted himself and his belongings to inspection by
by any fixed formula but is to be resolved according to the placing his bag in the x-ray scanning machine. The
facts of each case. Given the circumstances obtaining here, we presentation of petitioner’s bag for x-ray scanning was
voluntary. Petitioner had the choice of whether to present the him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the
bag or not. He had the option not to travel if he did not want his conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be
bag scanned or inspected. X-ray machine scanning and actual calculated to produce evil to someone else. The only part of the
inspection upon showing of probable cause that a crime is conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that
being or has been committed are part of reasonable security which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns
regulations to safeguard the passengers passing through ports himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself,
or terminals. Probable cause is: reasonable ground of over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.
suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
themselves to induce a cautious man to believe that the person  A third point of intrusion to petitioner’s right to privacy
accused is guilty of the offense charged. It refers to the occurred during petitioner’s submission to port security
existence of such facts and circumstances that can lead a measures.  This court should determine whether the
reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense requirements for a valid waiver against unreasonable searches
has been committed, and that the items, articles or objects and seizures were met. After detection of the firearms through
sought in connection with said offense or subject to seizure and the x-ray scanning machine and inspection by the baggage
destruction by law are in the place to be searched. inspector, Officer Abregana was called to inspect petitioner’s
bag.
****ALERT ALERT.**** (Mahilig mag pa expound si sir  The Constitution safeguards a person’s right against
ng mga pa quote sa cases, in case lang na matanong niya, unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrantless search is
mukhang significant tong part na to) presumed to be unreasonable. However, this court lays down
 As one philosopher said, the balance between authority and an the exceptions where warrantless searches are deemed
individual’s liberty may be confined within the harm that the legitimate: (1) warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;
individual may cause others. John Stuart Mill’s "harm (2) seizure in "plain view"; (3) search of a moving vehicle; (4)
principle" provides: consented warrantless search; (5) customs search; (6) stop and
frisk; and (7) exigent and emergency circumstances.
The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or  The consented search conducted on petitioner’s bag is different
collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of from a customs search. Customs searches, as exception to the
their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for requirement of a valid search warrant, are allowed when
which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a "persons exercising police authority under the customs law . . .
civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to effect search and seizure . . . in the enforcement of customs
others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a laws." The Code authorizes persons having police authority
sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or under Section 2203 of the Tariff and Customs Code to enter,
forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it pass through or search any land, inclosure, warehouse, store or
will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do building, not being a dwelling house; and also to inspect,
so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for search and examine any vessel or aircraft and any trunk,
remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading package, box or envelope or any person on board, or stop and
him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting search and examine any vehicle, beast or person suspected of
holding or conveying any dutiable or prohibited article girl admitted to smoking but the other, known as T.L.O., denied it. The
introduced into the Philippines contrary to law, without principal demanded to see the girl's purse and found evidence that she
mentioning the need of a search warrant in said cases was also selling marijuana at school. T.L.O. was taken to the police
 SC: Petition DENIED, AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION (in station where she admitted to selling marijuana. Based on her
relation with the penalty imposed) the ruling of RTC and CA confession and the evidence in her purse, the state of New Jersey
brought charges against her. In a juvenile court, T.L.O. argued that her
Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures
22. PEOPLE VS. JOHNSON  Airport Searches -> had been violated. The court sided with the school, and T.L.O. took her
authorized by law case to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which later found that the
 Johnson was about to fly back to US after a visit in Calamba, search was unreasonable, and the evidence could not be used. The state
Ramirez (lady frisker @ the airport NAIA gate 16) frisked her of New Jersey appealed the decision to the United States Supreme
after feeling something hard on Johnson’s abdominal area Court.
 Johnson: need to wear 2 panty girdles because underwent
operation for an ectopic pregnancy  Ramirez not satisfied, ISSUE: Does the exclusionary rule apply to searches conducted by
school officials in public schools?
told her superiors  directed Johnson to the ladies’ room,
found 3 plastic packs of shabu HELD: After the original oral argument in March of 1984, the
 Johnson: Gross violation of her constitutional rights, hence the Supreme Court restored the case to the calendar for reargument. In
plastic packs of shabu found are inadmissible evidence = NO addition to the previously argued question, the Court requested that the
MERIT parties brief and argue the additional question of whether the assistant
 Persons may lose the protection of the search and seizure principal violated the Fourth Amendment in opening T.L.O.'s purse.
clause by exposure of their persons or properties to the public The Court heard reargument on October 02, 1984. The Court held that
in a manner reflecting a lack of subjective expectation of while the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches
privacy, which expectation society is prepared to recognize as and seizures applies to public school officials, they may conduct
reasonable. reasonable warrantless searches of students under their authority
 Travelers are often notified through airport public address notwithstanding the probable cause standard that would normally
systems, signs, and notices in their airline tickets that they apply to searches under the Fourth Amendment. The Court held that
are subject to search and, if any prohibited materials or the search of T.L.O.'s purse was reasonable under the circumstances.
substances are found, such would be subject to seizure.
These announcements place passengers on notice that
ordinary constitutional protections against warrantless
searches and seizures do not apply to routine airport
procedures. *GIST*
24. VERNONIA SCHOOL DISTRICT VS ACTON
23. New Jersey vs TLO
FACTS: An official investigation led to the discovery that high school
athletes in the Vernonia School District participated in illicit drug use.
FACTS: In a New Jersey high school, a teacher found two girls
School officials were concerned that drug use increases the risk of
smoking in the bathroom and took them to the principal's office. One
sports-related injury. Consequently, the Vernonia School District of
Oregon adopted the Student Athlete Drug Policy which authorizes public and private offices, and persons charged before the prosecutor’s
random urinalysis drug testing of its student athletes. James Acton, a office with certain offenses.
student, was denied participation in his school's football program when In December 2003, COMELEC issued Resolution No. 6486,
he and his parents refused to consent to the testing. prescribing the rules and regulations on the mandatory drug testing of
candidates for public office in connection with the May 10, 2004
ISSUE: Does random drug testing of high school athletes violate the synchronized national and local elections. Aquilino Pimentel, Jr., a
reasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment? senator and a candidate for re-election in the May elections, filed a
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition under Rule 65. In it, he seeks
HELD: No. The reasonableness of a search is judged by "balancing the (1) to nullify Sec. 36(g) of RA 9165 and COMELEC Resolution No.
intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the 6486 dated December 23, 2003 for being unconstitutional in that they
promotion of legitimate governmental interests." In the case of high impose a qualification for candidates for senators in addition to those
school athletes who are under State supervision during school hours, already provided for in the 1987 Constitution; and (2) to enjoin the
they are subject to greater control than over free adults. The privacy COMELEC from implementing Resolution No. 6486.
interests compromised by urine samples are negligible since the According to Pimentel, the Constitution only prescribes a maximum of
conditions of collection are similar to public restrooms, and the results five (5) qualifications for one to be a candidate for, elected to, and be a
are viewed only by limited authorities. Furthermore, the governmental member of the Senate. He says that both the Congress and
concern over the safety of minors under their supervision overrides the COMELEC, by requiring, via RA 9165 and Resolution No. 6486, a
minimal, if any, intrusion in student-athlete’s privacy. senatorial aspirant, among other candidates, to undergo a mandatory
drug test, create an additional qualification that all candidates for
senator must first be certified as drug free. He adds that there is no
provision in the Constitution authorizing the Congress or COMELEC
to expand the qualification requirements of candidates for senator.
ISSUE: Whether or not Sec 36(g) of RA 9165 and Resolution 6486 are
constitutional.
HELD: No. Pimentel’s contention is valid. Accordingly, Sec. 36(g) of
RA 9165 is unconstitutional. It is basic that if a law or an
administrative rule violates any norm of the Constitution, that issuance
is null and void and has no effect. The Constitution is the basic law to
which all laws must conform; no act shall be valid if it conflicts with
the Constitution. In the discharge of their defined functions, the three
departments of government have no choice but to yield obedience to
the commands of the Constitution. Whatever limits it imposes must be
25. SOCIAL JUSTICE SOCIETY VS DANGEROUS DRUGS observed.
BOARD The provision “[n]o person elected to any public office shall enter
FACTS: In 2002, Republic Act No. 9165 or the Comprehensive upon the duties of his office until he has undergone mandatory drug
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 was implemented. Section 36 thereof test” is not tenable as it enlarges the qualifications. COMELEC
requires mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office, cannot, in the guise of enforcing and administering election laws or
students of secondary and tertiary schools, officers and employees of promulgating rules and regulations to implement Sec. 36, validly
impose qualifications on candidates for senator in addition to what the
Constitution prescribes. If Congress cannot require a candidate for suspension or termination, subject to the provisions
senator to meet such additional qualification, the COMELEC, to be of Article 282 of the Labor Code and pertinent
sure, is also without such power. The right of a citizen in the provisions of the Civil Service Law;
democratic process of election should not be defeated by unwarranted
impositions of requirement not otherwise specified in the Constitution. “the mandatory but random drug test prescribed by Sec. 36 of RA
9165 for officers and employees of public and private offices is
HOWEVER, SEC 36 (c ) and (d) are constitutional. justifiable. The Court notes in this regard that petitioner SJS, other
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- than saying that subjecting almost everybody to drug testing, without
-------------------------------- probable cause, is unreasonable, an unwarranted intrusion of the
SEC. 36. Authorized Drug Testing. Authorized individual right to privacy,] has failed to show how the mandatory,
drug testing shall be done by any government random, and suspicionless drug testing under Sec. 36(c) and (d) of RA
forensic laboratories or by any of the drug testing 9165 violates the right to privacy and constitutes unlawful and/or
laboratories accredited and monitored by the DOH unconsented search under Art. III, Secs. 1 and 2 of the Constitution.
to safeguard the quality of the test results. x x x The The essence of privacy is the right to be left alone. In context, the right
drug testing shall employ, among others, two (2) to privacy means the right to be free from unwarranted exploitation of
testing methods, the screening test which will one’s person or from intrusion into ones private activities in such a
determine the positive result as well as the type of way as to cause humiliation to a person’s ordinary sensibilities. And
drug used and the confirmatory test which will while there has been general agreement as to the basic function of the
confirm a positive screening test. x x x The following guarantee against unwarranted search, translation of the abstract
shall be subjected to undergo drug testing: prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures into workable
broad guidelines for the decision of particular cases is a difficult task,
xxxx to borrow from C. Camara v. Municipal Court. Authorities are agreed
though that the right to privacy yields to certain paramount rights of
(c) Students of secondary and tertiary the public and defers to the states exercise of police power.
schools. Students of secondary and tertiary schools
shall, pursuant to the related rules and regulations As the warrantless clause of Sec. 2, Art III of the Constitution is
as contained in the school’s student handbook and couched and as has been held, reasonableness is the touchstone of the
with notice to the parents, undergo a random drug validity of a government search or intrusion. And whether a search at
testing x x x; issue hews to the reasonableness standard is judged by the balancing
of the government-mandated intrusion on the individual’s privacy
(d) Officers and employees of public and interest against the promotion of some compelling state interest. In the
private offices. Officers and employees of public and criminal context, reasonableness requires showing of probable cause
private offices, whether domestic or overseas, shall to be personally determined by a judge. Given that the drug-testing
be subjected to undergo a random drug test as policy for employees and students for that matter under RA 9165 is in
contained in the company’s work rules and the nature of administrative search needing what was referred to in
regulations, x x x for purposes of reducing the risk Vernonia as swift and informal disciplinary procedures, the probable-
in the workplace. Any officer or employee found cause standard is not required or even practicable. Be that as it may,
positive for use of dangerous drugs shall be dealt the review should focus on the reasonableness of the challenged
with administratively which shall be a ground for administrative search in question.
The law intends to achieve this through the medium, among others, of
The first factor to consider in the matter of reasonableness is the promoting and resolutely pursuing a national drug abuse policy in the
nature of the privacy interest upon which the drug testing, which workplace via a mandatory random drug test. To the Court, the need
effects a search within the meaning of Sec. 2, Art. III of the for drug testing to at least minimize illegal drug use is substantial
Constitution, intrudes. In this case, the office or workplace serves as enough to override the individual’s privacy interest under the
the backdrop for the analysis of the privacy expectation of the premises. The Court can consider that the illegal drug menace cuts
employees and the reasonableness of drug testing requirement. The across gender, age group, and social- economic lines. And it may not
employee’s privacy interest in an office is to a large extent be amiss to state that the sale, manufacture, or trafficking of illegal
circumscribed by the company’s work policies, the collective drugs, with their ready market, would be an investors dream were it
bargaining agreement, if any, entered by management and the not for the illegal and immoral components of any of such activities.
bargaining unit, and the inherent right of the employer to maintain The drug problem has hardly abated since the martial law public
discipline and efficiency in the workplace. Their privacy expectation execution of a notorious drug trafficker. The state can no longer
in a regulated office environment is, in fine, reduced; and a degree of assume a laid-back stance with respect to this modern-day scourge.
impingement upon such privacy has been upheld. Drug enforcement agencies perceive a mandatory random drug test to
be an effective way of preventing and deterring drug use among
For another, the random drug testing shall be undertaken under employees in private offices, the threat of detection by random testing
conditions calculated to protect as much as possible the employee’s being higher than other modes. The Court holds that the chosen
privacy and dignity. As to the mechanics of the test, the law specifies method is a reasonable and enough means to lick the problem.
that the procedure shall employ two testing methods, i.e., the screening
test and the confirmatory test, doubtless to ensure as much as possible Taking into account the foregoing factors, i.e., the reduced expectation
the trustworthiness of the results. But the more important of privacy on the part of the employees, the compelling state concern
consideration lies in the fact that the test shall be conducted by trained likely to be met by the search, and the well-defined limits set forth in
professionals in access-controlled laboratories monitored by the the law to properly guide authorities in the conduct of the random
Department of Health (DOH) to safeguard against results tampering testing, we hold that the challenged drug test requirement is, under the
and to ensure an accurate chain of custody.] In addition, the IRR limited context of the case, reasonable and, ergo, constitutional.
issued by the DOH provides that access to the drug results shall be on Like their counterparts in the private sector, government officials and
the need to know basis; that the drug test result and the records shall employees also labor under reasonable supervision and restrictions
be [kept] confidential subject to the usual accepted practices to imposed by the Civil Service law and other laws on public officers, all
protect the confidentiality of the test results. Notably, RA 9165 does enacted to promote a high standard of ethics in the public service. And
not oblige the employer concerned to report to the prosecuting if RA 9165 passes the norm of reasonableness for private employees,
agencies any information or evidence relating to the violation of the the more reason that it should pass the test for civil servants, who, by
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act received as a result of the constitutional command, are required to be accountable at all times to
operation of the drug testing. All told, therefore, the intrusion into the the people and to serve them with utmost responsibility and efficiency
employee’s privacy, under RA 9165, is accompanied by proper
safeguards, particularly against embarrassing leakages of test results,
and is relatively minimal. 26. DELA CRUZ VS PEOPLE (2014)
To reiterate, RA 9165 was enacted as a measure to stamp out illegal
drug in the country and thus protect the well-being of the citizens, FACTS: Petitioner Jaime D. Dela Cruz was charged with violation of
especially the youth, from the deleterious effects of dangerous drugs. Section 15, Article II of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 9165, or The
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, by the Graft We find that petitioner never raised the alleged irregularity of his
Investigation and Prosecution Officer of the Office of the Ombudsman arrest before his arraignment and raises the issue only now before this
- Visayas, in an Information dated 14 February 2006, which reads: tribunal; hence, he is deemed to have waived his right to question the
That on or about the 31st day of January 2006, at Cebu City, validity of his arrest curing whatever defect may have attended his
Philippines, and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the arrest. However, "a waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not
abovenamed accused, JAIME D. DE LA CRUZ, a public officer, mean a waiver of the inadmissibility of evidence seized during an
having been duly appointed and qualified to such public position as illegal warrantless arrest”
Police Officer 2 of the Philippine National Police (PNP) assigned in
the Security Service Group of the Cebu City Police Office, after “The drug test was a violation of petitioner’s right to privacy and
having been arrested by agents of the National Bureau of Investigation right against self-incrimination.
(NBI) in an entrapment operation, was found positive for use of It is incontrovertible that petitioner refused to have his urine extracted
METHAMPHETAMINE HYDROCHLORIDE commonly known as and tested for drugs. He also asked for a lawyer prior to his urine test.
"Shabu", the dangerous drug after a confirmatory test conducted on He was adamant in exercising his rights, but all of his efforts proved
said accused. futile, because he was still compelled to submit his urine for drug
testing under those circumstances.
ISSUE: Whether or not the drug test conducted upon the petitioner is The pertinent provisions in Article III of the Constitution are clear:
legal Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
RTC RULING (CA AFFIRMED): The Regional Trial Court (RTC) whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no
Branch 58 of Cebu City, in its Decision dated 6 June 2007, found the search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable
accused guilty beyond reasonable doubt of violating Section 15, cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination
Article II of R.A. 9165 and sentenced him to suffer the penalty of under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
compulsory rehabilitation for a period of not less than six (6) months produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the
at the Cebu Center for the Ultimate Rehabilitation of Drug Dependents persons or things to be seized.”
located at Salinas, Lahug, Cebu City.
Petitioner filed an appeal assigning as error the RTC’s validation of the
result of the urine test despite its dubiousness having been admitted
inspite of the lack of legal basis for its admission. First, he alleges that
the forensic laboratory examination was conducted despite the fact that
he was not assisted by counsel, in clear violation of his constitutional
right. Secondly, he was allegedly held guilty beyond reasonable doubt 27. LUCAS VS LUCAS
notwithstanding the lack of sufficient basis to convict him. FACTS: Petitioner, Jesse Lucas filed a Petition to Establish Filiation
with a Motion for the Submission of Parties to DNA Testing before the
HELD: No. The drug test can be made upon who were apprehended or Regional Trial Court (RTC). Jesse alleged that he is the son of his
arrested under the situations listed in Art 2 of RA 9165. It must be mother Elsie who got acquainted with respondent, Jesus S. Lucas in
noted that the accused was arrested in the alleged act of extortion. Manila. He also submitted documents which include (a) petitioner’s
Extortion is not listed in Art 2 of RA 9165. certificate of live birth; (b) petitioner’s baptismal certificate; (c)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- petitioner’s college diploma, showing that he graduated from Saint
-------------------------------- Louis University in Baguio City with a degree in Psychology; (d) his
Certificate of Graduation from the same school; (e) Certificate of They are matters of evidence that cannot be determined at this initial
Recognition from the University of the Philippines, College of Music; stage of the proceedings, when only the petition to establish filiation
and (f) clippings of several articles from different newspapers about has been filed. The CA’s observation that petitioner failed to establish
petitioner, as a musical prodigy. a prima facie case is therefore misplaced. A prima facie case is built by
Jesus learned of this and he filed a Special Appearance and Comment a party’s evidence and not by mere allegations in the initiatory
manifesting that the petition was adversarial in nature and therefore pleading.
summons should be served on him. Meanwhile, Jesse filed a Very Section 4 of the Rule on DNA Evidence merely provides for
Urgent Motion to Try and Hear the Case which the RTC found to be conditions that are aimed to safeguard the accuracy and integrity of the
sufficient in form and hence set the case for hearing. Jesus filed a DNA testing. It states that the appropriate court may, at any time,
Motion for Reconsideration arguing that DNA testing cannot be had on either motu proprio or on application of any person, who has a legal
the basis of a mere allegation pointing to him as Jesse’s father. interest in the matter in litigation, order a DNA testing. Such order
Acting on Jesus’ Motion for Reconsideration, the RTC dismissed the shall issue after due hearing and notice to the parties upon a showing
case and held that Jesse failed to establish compliance with the four of the following: (a) A biological sample exists that is relevant to the
procedural aspects for a paternity action enumerated in the case of case;(b) The biological sample: (i) was not previously subjected to the
Herrera v. Alba namely, a prima facie case, affirmative defenses, type of DNA testing now requested; or (ii) was previously subjected to
presumption of legitimacy, and physical resemblance between the DNA
putative father and the child. testing, but the results may require confirmation for good reasons; (c)
This prompted Jesse to file a Motion for Reconsideration which the The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid technique; (d) The DNA
RTC granted. A new hearing was scheduled where the RTC held that testing has the scientific potential to produce new information that is
ruling on the grounds relied upon by Jesse for filing the instant petition relevant to the proper resolution of the case; and (e) The existence of
is premature considering that a full-blown trial has not yet taken place. other factors, if any, which the court may consider as potentially
Jesus filed a Motion for Reconsideration which was denied by the affecting the accuracy or integrity of the DNA testing. This Rule shall
RTC. He then filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals not preclude a DNA testing, without need of a prior court order, at the
(CA). The CA ruled in favor of Jesus, it noted that Jesse failed to show behest of any party, including law enforcement agencies, before a suit
that the four significant aspects of a traditional paternity action had or proceeding is commenced. This does not mean, however, that a
been met and held that DNA testing should not be allowed when the DNA testing order will be issued as a matter of right if, during the
petitioner has failed to establish a prima facie case. hearing, the said conditions are established.
ISSUE: Whether a prima facie showing is necessary before a court can In some states, to warrant the issuance of the DNA testing order, there
issue a DNA testing order must be a show cause hearing wherein the applicant must first present
HELD: Yes, but it is not yet time to discuss the lack of a prima facie sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case or a reasonable
case vis-à-vis the motion for DNA testing since no evidence has, as possibility of paternity or “good cause” for the holding of the test. In
yet, been presented by petitioner. these states, a court order for blood testing is considered a
RATIO: “search,” which, under their Constitutions (as in ours), must be
Misapplication of Herrera v. Alba by the Regional Trial Court and the preceded by a finding of probable cause in order to be valid.
Court of Appeals. The statement in Herrera v. Alba that there are four Hence, the requirement of a prima facie case, or reasonable possibility,
significant procedural aspects in a traditional paternity case which was imposed in civil actions as a counterpart of a finding of probable
parties have to face has been widely misunderstood and misapplied in cause. Courts in various jurisdictions have differed regarding the kind
this case. A party is confronted by these so-called procedural aspects of procedures which are required, but those jurisdictions have almost
during trial, when the parties have presented their respective evidence. universally found that a preliminary showing must be made before a
court can constitutionally order compulsory blood testing in paternity DNA sample from an unsolved rape case. This sample was the only
cases. We agree, and find that, as a preliminary matter, before the court evidence linking King to the rape. The trial judge denied King's
may issue an order for compulsory blood testing, the moving party motion to suppress the DNA evidence and he was convicted of first-
must show that there is a reasonable possibility of paternity. As degree rape and sentenced to life in prison.
explained hereafter, in cases in which paternity is contested and a party King appealed the conviction, arguing that the MDCA was an
to the action refuses to voluntarily undergo a blood test, a show cause unconstitutional infringement of his Fourth Amendment privilege
hearing must be held in which the court can determine whether there is against warrantless searches. The Court of Appeals of Maryland
sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case which warrants reversed, holding that the MDCA was unconstitutional. The court held
issuance of a court order for blood testing The same condition that King's expectation of privacy was greater than Maryland's interest
precedent should be applied in our jurisdiction to protect the putative in using the DNA for identification purposes.
father from mere harassment suits. Thus, during the hearing on the
motion for DNA testing, the petitioner must present prima facie ISSUE:
evidence or establish a reasonable possibility of paternity.” Whether or not the Fourth Amendment allows states to collect and
analyze DNA from people arrested, but not convicted, of serious
crimes.

HELD:
Yes. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered the opinion of the 5-4
majority. The Court held that conducting a DNA swab test as a part of
the arrest procedure does not violate the Fourth Amendment because
the test serves a legitimate state interest and is not so invasive so as to
require a warrant. The routine administrative procedures that occur
during a booking for an arrest do not require the same justification and
the search of a location. The Court held that ascertaining an arrestee's
identity and criminal history is a crucial part of the arrest procedure
and that a DNA test is just as valid and informative as fingerprinting.
Determining an arrestee's criminal history also serves the legitimate
state interest of determining what level of risk the individual poses to
the public and what conditions should be set on his/her release from
28. MARYLAND VS KING custody.
Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a dissent in which he argued that the
FACTS: Fourth Amendment categorically prevents searching a person for
The Maryland DNA Collection Act (MDCA) allows state and local evidence of a crime without cause. Because the majority's opinion
law enforcement officers to collect DNA samples from individuals allows for DNA tests to be conducted in the absence of evidence
who are arrested for a crime of violence, an attempted crime of linking the arrestee to a specific DNA-related crime, these tests fall
violence, burglary, or attempted burglary. Alonzo Jay King, Jr. was within the boundaries of the British "general warrants" the Fourth
arrested on first and second-degree assault charges. While under arrest, Amendment was intended to prohibit. He also argued that the
but prior to conviction, King's DNA was collected and logged in procedural safeguards on the DNA evidence make it an ineffective and
Maryland's DNA database. That database matched King's DNA to a
redundant identification tool. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Justice
Sonia Sotomayor, and Justice Elena Kagan joined in the dissent.

C. (ELECTRONIC AND OTHER SEARCHES) 29. KYLLO VS. US

Facts:

 Marijuana was allegedly grown in petitioner’s home in triplex. The


agents decided to use a thermal imaging device to scan the triplex to Ruling:
determine if the amount of heat emanating from it was consistent
with the high-intensity lamps typically used for door marijuana  Yes. In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court
growth. held that "[w]here, as here, the Government uses a device that is not
 The scan took only a few minutes. The scan showed that Kyllo’s
in general public use, to explore details of the home that would
garage roof and a side wall were relatively hot compared to the rest
previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion.”
of the house and the neighboring found.  The surveillance is a 'search' and is presumptively unreasonable
 After Kyllo was indicated a federal drug charge of manufacturing
without a warrant."
marijuana he unsuccessfully moved to suppress the evidence.  The Fourth Amendment States that “The right of the people to be
secure in their persons houses, papers and effects against
Issue: unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.
Whether or not the use of a thermal-imaging device to detect relative
amounts of heat emanating from a private home constitute an
unconstitutional search in violation of the Fourth Amendment?
30. RICCIO “RICKY” A. POLLO v. CHAIRPERSON KARINA computers they used in the work place may vary on a case-to-case
CONSTANTINO-DAVID basis. In cases that there is reduced privacy expectation, search
incidental to work-related investigations must comply with the
(ELECTRONIC AND OTHER SEARCHES) reasonableness and scope test.
Government employee’s constitutional protection to privacy as to the
Facts: guilty of work-related misconduct, or that the search is necessary for
a non-investigatory work-related purpose such as to retrieve a needed
 Pollo is a government employee whose computer was searched file x x x. The search will be permissible in its scope when the
pursuant to the anonymous letter complaint to the Office of measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the
Chairperson David. The government employer used Pollo’s personal search and not excessively intrusive in light of the nature of the
files stored in the computer as evidence of misconduct. Thereafter, misconduct.
Pollo was charged administratively and dismissed from service.
Pollo now assails the validity of the search and resulting evidence
thereby being the fruit of the poisonous tree. D. (WARRANTLESS ARREST)
Issue:
31. POSADAS VS. OMBUDSMAN
 Whether the search conducted on his office computer and the
copying of his personal files without his knowledge and consent was
reasonable. Facts:

Ruling:  Dennis Venturina, a member of Sigma Rho at the University of


the Philippines, was killed in a rumble between his fraternity
 YES. In the case of searches conducted by a public employer, we and another fraternity on December 8, 1994. Petitioner
must balance the invasion of the employee’s legitimate expectations
Posadas, then Chancellor of U.P. Diliman, asked the Director
of privacy against the government’s need for supervision, control,
and the efficient operation of the workplace. To the Court’s view,
of the NBI for assistance in determining the persons
therefore, a probable cause requirement for searches of the type at responsible for the crime. With that, respondent Dizon, Chief
issue here would impose intolerable burdens on public employers. of the Special Operations Group of the NBI, and his men went
The delay in correcting the employee misconduct caused by the need to U.P. and, on the basis of the supposed positive identification
for probable cause rather than reasonable suspicion will be translated of two alleged eyewitnesses, they attempted to arrest Francis
into tangible and often irreparable damage to the agency’s work, and Carlo Taparan and Raymundo Narag, officers/members of the
ultimately to the public interest Scintilla Juris Fraternity, as suspects in the killing of Venturina.
 Public employer intrusions on the constitutionally protected privacy It appears that the two suspects had come that day to the U.P.
interests of government employees for no investigatory, work-related Police Station for a peace talk between their fraternity and the
purposes, as well as forinvestigations of work-related misconduct, Sigma Rho Fraternity.
should be judged by the standard of reasonableness under all the
circumstances. Under this reasonableness standard, both the
inception and the scope of the intrusion must be reasonable:  Petitioners Posadas, Lambino, and Torres-Yu, also of U.P., and
 Determining the reasonableness of any search involves a two-fold a certain Atty. Villamor, counsel for the suspects, objected on
inquiry: first, one must consider whether the action was justified at the ground that the NBI did not have warrants of arrest with
its inception, x x x; second, one must determine whether the search them. As a result of their intervention, Taparan and Narag were
as actually conducted was reasonably related in scope to the not arrested by the NBI agents on that day. However, criminal
circumstances which justified the interference in the first place. charges were filed later against the two student suspects.
Ordinarily, a search of an employee’s office by a supervisor will be
justified at its inception when there are reasonable grounds for  Dizon then filed a complaint in the Office of the Special
suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the employee is Prosecutor, charging petitioners Posadas, Torres-Yu, Lambino,
Col. Eduardo Bentain, Chief of the Security Force of the U.P.  There is no question that this case does not fall under
Police, and Atty. Villamor with violation of P.D. 1829, which paragraphs (a) and (c). The arresting officers in this case did
makes it unlawful for anyone to obstruct the apprehension and not witness the crime being committed. Neither are the students
prosecution of criminal offenders. fugitives from justice nor prisoners who had escaped from
confinement. The question is whether paragraph (b) applies
 On motion of petitioners, the Special Prosecutor's Office because it is the contention of the respondents that the NBI
recommended the dismissal of the case. But such was agents had personal knowledge of facts gathered by them in the
disapproved. The Office of the Ombudsman directed the course of their investigation indicating that the students sought
Special Prosecutor to proceed with the prosecution of to be arrested were the perpetrators of the crime. But the Court
petitioners in the Sandiganbayan. ruled in negative.

 Hence this petition for certiorari and prohibition to set aside the  "Personal knowledge" of facts in arrests without a warrant
resolution of the Ombudsman's office ordering the prosecution under Section 5 (b) of Rule 113 must be based upon "probable
of petitioners. cause" which means an "actual belief or reasonable grounds
of suspicion." The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when,
Issue: in the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers, the
 Whether the attempted arrest of the student suspects by the NBI suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of
could be validly made without a warrant. committing the offense is based on actual facts.

Ruling: No,  At the time Dennis Venturina was killed, these agents were
 In view of Art. III, Sec. 2 of the Constitution, the rule is that no nowhere near the scene of the crime. When respondent Dizon
arrest may be made except by virtue of a warrant issued by a and his men attempted to arrest Taparan and Narag, the latter
judge after examining the complainant and the witnesses he were not committing a crime nor were they doing anything that
may produce and after finding probable cause to believe that would create the suspicion that they were doing anything
the person to be arrested has committed the crime. The illegal.
exceptions when an arrest may be made even without a warrant
are provided in Rule 113, Sec. 5 of the Rules of Criminal
Procedure which reads:

(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has


committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an E. EXCLUSIONARY RULE-barred the admission of such
offense;
(b) When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has tainted evidence and whatever other fruits they may bear or lead to,
personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person to be without prejudice to still imposing just deserts upon the errant officers.
arrested has committed it;
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped A fruit of an illegal or unconstitutional act could not and should not be
from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final given any form of legitimacy by its admission in evidence; a means of
judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has
escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. deterrence, the erring officers may also be subjected to criminal and
civil liabilities for violating the constitutional proscription against merely evidence so acquired shall not be used before the court, but it
unreasonable search and seizures.) shall not be used at all.
 If the knowledge from an independent source they may be proved
like any others, but the knowledge gained by the Government’s own
32. SILVERTHRONE LUMBER CO. UNITED STATES
wrong cannot be used by it in the way proposed. (pp. 618-619)
Facts:
 An indictment upon a single specific charge was brought against
Frederick W. Silverthrone and his father.
 Both were arrested at their homes early morning of February and
were detained in custody a number of hours.
 While being detained the representatives of the Department of
Justice and the U.S. marshal WITHOUT A SHADOW OF
AUTHORITY went to their company office, Silverthrone Lumber
Co., Inc. and made a clean sweep of all the books, papers and
documents found there.
 The district court ordered return of the originals but impounded the
photographs and copies. The subpoenas to produce the originals were
served. Although the district court found that all the papers were
seized in violation of the owners' constitutional rights, it ordered the
owners to comply with the subpoenas.
 Silverthrone refused to comply on the ground that the order
infringed the rights of the parties under the Fourth Amendment.
F. (PRIVACY INTERESTS)
Issue:
33. Ople v Torres
 Whether or not the Govertment can use the knowledge it gained from
reading illegally seized documents as evidence against the petitioners Facts:
at trial?
Ople seeks for the invalidation of Administrative Order No. 308
Ruling: entitled "Adoption of a National Computerized Identification
 No, the essence of the provision (The Fourth Amendment) in Reference System" on two constitutional grounds (1) it is a usurpation
forbidding the acquisition of evidence in certain way is that not
of the power of Congress to legislate, and (2) it impermissibly deserves constitutional protection. This right is expressly recognized in
intrudes protected zone of privacy (violates right to privacy). section 3(1) of the bill of rights.
Issue:
Whether or not the assailed administrative order violates right to It is the burden of the government to show that the assailed
privacy. administrative order is justified. A.O. No. 308 is predicated on two
Ruling: considerations: (1) the need to provide our citizens and foreigners with
Yes. AO 208 is unconstitutional for violating the right to privacy, the facility to conveniently transact business with basic service and
protected by the bill of rights enshrined in the constitution. social security providers and other government instrumentalities and
In view of the issue: whether or not the issuance of the assailed (2) the need to reduce, if not totally eradicate, fraudulent transactions
issue by the president usurps the legislative powers of the and misrepresentations by persons seeking basic services. It is
Congress debatable whether these interests are compelling enough to warrant the
An administrative order is an ordinance issued by the President which issuance of A.O. No. 308. But what is not arguable is the broadness,
relates to specific aspects in the administrative operation of the vagueness, the overbreadth of A.O. No. 308 which if implemented
government. It must be in harmony with the law and should be for the will put our people's right to privacy in clear and present danger.
sole purpose of implementing the law and carrying out the legislative The heart of A.O. No. 308 lies in its Section 4 which provides for a
policy. The court holds that A.O. No. 308 involves a subject that is not Population Reference Number (PRN) as a "common reference number
appropriate to be covered by an administrative order. The contention of to establish a linkage among concerned agencies" through the use of
the dissenters that the assailed order is not a law because it confers no "Biometrics Technology" and "computer application designs." A.O.
right, imposes no duty, affords no protection, and creates no office is No. 308 should also raise our antennas for a further look will show that
not correct because the said order it forces the citizens to avail the it does not state whether encoding of data is limited to biological
identification card in order for the citizens to transact business with the information alone for identification purposes. In fact, the Solicitor
government. Without the ID, a citizen will have a difficulty exercising General claims that the adoption of the Identification Reference
his rights and enjoying his privileges. Hence, the contention that the System will contribute to the "generation of population data for
order gives no right and imposes no duty cannot stand. Petitioner development planning." Clearly, the indefiniteness of A.O. No. 308
claims that A.O. No. 308 is not a mere administrative order but a law can give the government the authority to store and retrieve information
and hence, beyond the power of the President to issue. for a purpose other than the identification of the individual through his
". . . Many regulations however, bear directly on the public. It is here PRN. The lack of proper safeguards in this regard of A.O. No. 308
that administrative legislation must he restricted in its scope and may interfere with the individual's liberty of abode and travel by
application. Regulations are not supposed to be a substitute for the enabling authorities to track down his movement; it may also enable
general policy-making that Congress enacts in the form of a public unscrupulous persons to access confidential information and
law. Although administrative regulations are entitled to respect, the circumvent the right against self-incrimination; it may pave the way
authority to prescribe rules and regulations is not an independent for "fishing expeditions" by government authorities and evade the
source of power to make laws." – Fisher right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In view of the issue: whether or not the assailed order violates the Well to note, the computer linkage gives other government agencies
right to privacy access to the information. Yet, there are no controls to guard against
leakage of information. When the access code of the control programs
The essence of privacy is the “right to be let alone”. In Morfe vs. of the particular computer system is broken, an intruder, without fear
Mutuc, the court ruled that there is a constitutional right to privacy that of sanction or penalty, can make use of the data for whatever purpose,
or worse, manipulate the data stored within the system. It is plain and executive branch of the government and that it infringes on right to
we hold that A.O. No. 308 falls short of assuring that personal privacy (by allowing access to personal confidential data without the
information which will be gathered about our people will only be owner’s consent)
processed for unequivocally specified purposes. The lack of proper Issue:
safeguards in this regard of A.O. No. 308 may interfere with the Whether or not EO 420 usurps legislative power by the president and
individual's liberty of abode and travel by enabling authorities to track whether or not it violates right to privacy
down his movement; it may also enable unscrupulous persons to Ruling:
access confidential information and circumvent the right against self- In view of the issue whether or not the issuance of the order
incrimination; it may pave the way for "fishing expeditions" by constitutes a usurpation of the legislative powers by the president
government authorities and evade the right against unreasonable EO 420 does not constitute a usurpation of legislative power by the
searches and seizures. The possibilities of abuse and misuse of the President
PRN, biometrics and computer technology are accentuated when we
consider that the individual lacks control over what can be read or The purposes of the uniform ID data collection and ID format are to
placed on his ID, much less verify the correctness of the data encoded. reduce costs, achieve efficiency and reliability, insure compatibility,
They threaten the very abuses that the Bill of Rights seeks to prevent. and provide convenience to the people served by government entities.
Section 3 of EO 420 limits the data to be collected and recorded under
In no uncertain terms, we also underscore that the right to privacy the uniform ID system to only 14 specific items, which are the usual
does not bar all incursions into individual privacy. The right is not data required for personal identification by the government entities. In
intended to stifle scientific and technological advancements that fact, EO 420 will reduce the data required to be collected and recorded
enhance public service and the common good. It merely requires that in the ID databases of the government entities. In fact, some
the law be narrowly focused and a compelling interest justify such government entities collect and record more data than what EO 420
intrusions. Intrusions into the right must be accompanied by proper allows; the Supreme Court ID contains far more data than the
safeguards and well-defined standards to prevent unconstitutional proposed uniform ID for government entities under EO 420.
invasions. A unified ID system for all these government entities can be achieved
"the disturbing result could be that everyone will live burdened by an in either of two ways. First, the heads of these existing government
entities can enter into a memorandum of agreement making their
unerasable record of his past and his limitations. In a way, the threat
systems uniform. Second, the President may by executive or
is that because of its record-keeping, the society will have lost its administrative order direct the government entities under the Executive
benign capacity to forget." – Kalvin Jr. department to adopt a uniform ID data collection and format, as
provided under Section 17, Article VII of the Constitution. Under this
34. Kilusang Mayo Uno vs. Director-General, NEDA constitutional power of control, the President can direct all government
entities to adopt a uniform ID data collection. However, this power of
Facts: control is limited to the Executive branch of government only. This
This case involves two consolidated petitions for certiorari, shows that EO 320 does not establish a national ID system because a
prohibition, and mandamus under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, legislation is needed to establish a single ID system that is compulsory
seeking the nullification of Executive Order No. 420, which requires for all branches of government.
all government agencies and government-owned and controlled Clearly, EO 420 is well within the constitutional power of the
corporations to streamline and harmonize their ID system, on the President to promulgate. In issuing EO 420, the President did not
ground that it constitutes usurpation of legislative functions by the make, alter or repeal any law but merely implemented and executed
existing laws. What require legislation are three aspects of a over government entities in the Executive department, as well as under
government maintained ID card system; (1) when the implementation the Presidents constitutional duty to ensure that laws are faithfully
requires a special appropriation, (2) when it is compulsory on all executed.
branches of government, and (3) when it requires the collection and Petitions are DISMISSED. EO 420 is declared VALID.
recording of personal data beyond what is routinely or usually
required. All of these requirements are not present in the assailed G. (WRIT OF HABEAS DATA)
order.
On the issue of whether or not the assailed order violates right to 35.Gamboa vs. Chan
privacy
All these years, the GSIS, SSS, LTO, Philhealth and other government Facts:
entities have been issuing ID cards in the performance of their Former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issued A.O. 275, which
governmental functions. There have been no complaints from citizens provides for the creation of an independent commission to address the
that the ID cards of these government entities violate their right to alleged existence of private armies in the country. Zeñarosa
privacy. The data collected and stored for the unified ID system under Commission was formed to investigate the existence of private army
EO 420 will be limited to only 14 specific data, and the ID card itself groups (PAGs) in the country with a view to eliminating them before
will show only eight specific data. The data collection, recording and the 10 May 2010 elections and dismantling them permanently in the
ID card system under EO 420 will even require less data collected, future. Upon the conclusion of its investigation, the Zeñarosa
stored and revealed than under the disparate systems prior to EO 420. Commission released and submitted to the Office of the President a
EO 420 further provides strict safeguards to protect the confidentiality confidential report.
of the data collected, in contrast to the prior ID systems which are Gamboa alleges that PNP–Ilocos Norte classified her as someone who
bereft of strict administrative safeguards. The right to privacy does not keeps a PAG and without the benefit of data verification, PNP–Ilocos
bar the adoption of reasonable ID systems by government entities. Norte forwarded the information gathered on her to the Zeñarosa
In Whalen v. Roe, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the validity of a Commission, thereby causing her inclusion in the Report’s
New York law that required doctors to furnish the government reports enumeration of individuals maintaining PAGs. ABS-CBN broadcasted
identifying patients who received prescription drugs that have a on its evening news program the portion of the Report naming
potential for abuse. The U.S. Supreme Court rejected the privacy Gamboa as one of the politicians alleged to be maintaining a PAG.21
claim, and declared that disclosures of private medical information to Gamboa averred that her association with a PAG also appeared on
doctors, to hospital personnel, to insurance companies, and to public print media. Thus, she was publicly tagged as someone who maintains
health agencies are often an essential part of modern medical practice a PAG on the basis of the unverified information that the PNP-Ilocos
even when the disclosure may reflect unfavorably on the character of Norte gathered. Gamboa claims that her right to privacy was violated.
the patient.Compared to the personal medical data required for Issue:
disclosure to the New York State in Whalen, the 14 specific data Whether or not Gamboa’s right to privacy was violated.
required for disclosure to the Philippine government under EO 420 are Ruling:
far less sensitive and far less personal. No. Gamboa’s right to privacy was not violated.
In the present case, EO 420 does not establish a national ID system but
makes the existing sectoral card systems of government entities like "Liberty in the constitutional sense must mean more than freedom
GSIS, SSS, Philhealth and LTO less costly, more efficient, reliable and from unlawful governmental restraint; it must include privacy as well,
user-friendly to the public. Hence, EO 420 is a proper subject of if it is to be a repository of freedom. The right to be let alone is indeed
executive issuance under the Presidents constitutional power of control the beginning of all freedom." – Justice Douglas. Right to privacy is
“the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by lawful mandate. Therefore, the privilege of the writ of habeas data
civilized men” – Justice Bradeis. However, in Standard Chartered must be denied.
Bank v. Senate Committee on Banks, the Supreme Court underscored
that the right to privacy is not absolute where there is an overriding 36. Vivares vs. St. Theresa’s College
compelling state interest. Therefore, when the right to privacy finds
tension with a competing state objective, the courts are required to Facts:
weigh both notions. In these cases, although considered a fundamental Julia Daluz and Julienne Suzara were graduating high school students
right, the right to privacy may nevertheless succumb to an opposing or at St. Theresa's College (STC), Cebu City. In January 2012, while
overriding state interest deemed legitimate and compelling. changing into their swimsuits for a beach party, Julia and Julienne took
On the issue of habeas data photos of themselves in their undergarments. These pictures were then
The writ of habeas data is an independent and summary remedy uploaded by Angela Tan on FB.
designed to protect the image, privacy, honor, information, and Mylene Escudero, a computer teacher at STC’s high school
freedom of information of an individual, and to provide a forum to department, learned from her students about the pictures. Escudero
enforce one’s right to the truth and to informational privacy. It must be asked about the students and Julia, Julienne, and Chloe Lourdes
emphasized that in order for the privilege of the writ to be granted, Taboada (Chloe), among others, were identified.
there must exist a nexus between the right to privacy on the one hand, Escudero’s students showed her photos of the identified students,
and the right to life, liberty or security on the other. which include: (a) Julia and Julienne drinking hard liquor and smoking
The Constitution explicitly mandates the dismantling of private armies cigarettes inside a bar; and (b) Julia and Julienne along the streets of
and other armed groups not recognized by the duly constituted Cebu wearing articles of clothing that show virtually the entirety of
authority. It also provides for the establishment of one police force that their black brassieres.
is national in scope and civilian in character, and is controlled and Escudero showed the photos to STC’s Discipline-in-Charge for
administered by a national police commission. Hence, it is clear that appropriate action. When the students reported to the office, they were
the issuance of A.O. 275 articulates a legitimate state aim, which is to castigated and verbally abused by STC officials. There were also
investigate the existence of PAGs with the ultimate objective of barred from joining the graduation ceremony. A week before the
dismantling them permanently. graduation, Angela’s and Julia’s mothers filed a petition before the
The fact that the PNP released information to the Zeñarosa RTC. Despite the issuance of TRO, STC still barred the sanctioned
Commission without prior communication to Gamboa and without students from graduating.
affording her the opportunity to refute the same cannot be interpreted Issue:
as a violation or threat to her right to privacy since that act is an Whether or not there was an actual or threatened violation of the right
inherent and crucial component of intelligence-gathering and to privacy.
investigation. However, to accord the right to privacy with the kind of Ruling:
protection established in existing law and jurisprudence, this Court No; there was no actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy.
nonetheless deems it necessary to caution these investigating entities In developing the writ of habeas data, the Court aimed to protect an
that information-sharing must observe strict confidentiality. In this individual’s right to informational privacy. It was defined as "a
case, respondents admitted the existence of the Report, but emphasized procedure designed to safeguard individual freedom from abuse in the
its confidential nature. It is clear from the foregoing discussion that the information age." The writ, however, will not issue on the basis merely
state interest of dismantling PAGs far outweighs the alleged intrusion of an alleged unauthorized access to information about a person.
on the private life of Gamboa, especially when the collection and Availment of the writ requires the existence of a nexus between the
forwarding by the PNP of information against her was pursuant to a
right to privacy on the one hand, and the right to life, liberty or "Me Only" privacy setting, or that the user’s contact list has been
security on the other. Hence, there must be an evidence showing an screened to limit access to a select few, through the "Custom" setting,
actual or threatened violation of the right to privacy. the result may have been different.
a. The Right to Informational Privacy STC cannot be faulted for being steadfast in its duty of teaching its
Justice Puno’s three strands of the right to privacy, viz: (1) locational students to be responsible in their dealings and activities in
or situational privacy; (2) informational privacy; and (3) decisional cyberspace, particularly in OSNs, when it enforced the disciplinary
privacy. Of the three, what is relevant in the present case is the right to actions specified in the Student Handbook, absent a showing that, in
informational privacy – right of individuals to control information the process, it violated the students’ rights.
about themselves.
The question now though is up to what extent is the right to privacy 37. Lee vs. Ilagan
protected in OSNs? Bear in mind that informational privacy involves
personal information. At the same time, the very purpose of OSNs is Facts:
socializing––sharing a myriad of information, some of which would In 2011, Ilagan visited Lee at the latter’s condominium, rested for a
have otherwise remained personal. To address concerns about privacy, while and thereafter, proceeded to his office. Upon arrival, Ilagan
but without defeating its purpose, Facebook was armed with different noticed that his digital camera was missing. Lee confronted Ilagan at
privacy tools designed to regulate the accessibility of a user’s profile the latter’s office regarding a purported sex video she discovered from
as well as information uploaded by the user. However, these privacy the camera involving Ilagan and another woman. Ilagan denied the
settings are not foolproof. Utilization of these privacy tools is the video and demanded Lee to return the camera, but to no avail. During
manifestation, in cyber world, of the user’s invocation of his or her the confrontation, Ilagan allegedly slammed Lee’s head against a wall
right to informational privacy. Hence, the determination of the extent inside his office and walked away. Subsequently, Lee utilized the said
that the images in question were visible to other Facebook users is video as evidence in filing various complaints against Ilagan. Ilagan
necessary in resolving the issue whether the minors carved out a zone claimed that Lee’s acts of reproducing the subject video and
of privacy when the photos were uploaded. threatening to distribute the same to the upper echelons of the
It is well to note that not one of petitioners disputed Escudero’s sworn NAPOLCOM and uploading it to the internet violated not only his
account that her students showed her the photos using their own right to life, liberty, security, and privacy but also that of the other
Facebook accounts. This only goes to show that no special means to be woman, and thus, the issuance of a writ of habeas data in his favor is
able to view the allegedly private posts were ever resorted to by warranted.
Escudero’s students, and that it is reasonable to assume that the photos
were viewable either by (1) their Facebook friends, or (2) by the public Issue:
at large. Considering that the default setting for Facebook posts is Whether or not the RTC correctly extended the privilege of the writ of
“Public," it can be surmised that the photographs in question were habeas data in favor of Ilagan.
viewable to everyone on Facebook, absent any proof that petitioners’ Ruling:
children positively limited the disclosure of the photograph. If such No; the RTC erred in extending the privilege of the writ of habeas data
were the case, they cannot invoke the protection attached to the right in favor of Ilagan.
to informational privacy. Clearly, the fault, if any, lies with the friends Habeas data now stands as “a remedy available to any person whose
of the minors. Curiously enough, however, neither the minors nor their right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by
parents imputed any violation of privacy against the students who an unlawful act or omission of a public official or employee, or of a
showed the images to Escudero. Had it been proved that the access to private individual or entity engaged in the gathering, collecting or
the pictures posted were limited to the original uploader, through the
storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home, and
correspondence of the aggrieved party.” The petition must adequately
show that there exists a nexus between the right to privacy on the
one hand, and the right to life, liberty or security on the other. On
the same hand, the allegations in the petition must be supported by
substantial evidence showing an actual or threatened violation of the
right to privacy in life, liberty or security of the victim.
The Court finds that Ilagan was not able to sufficiently allege that his
right to privacy in life, liberty or security was or would be violated
through the supposed reproduction and threatened dissemination of the
subject sex video.
The Court finds that Ilagan was not able to sufficiently allege that his
right to privacy in life, liberty or security was or would be violated
through the supposed reproduction and threatened dissemination of the
subject sex video. The petition would equally be dismissible due to the
inadequacy of the evidence presented.
Nothing therein would indicate that Lee actually proceeded to commit
any overt act towards the end of violating Ilagan’s right to privacy in
life, liberty or security. Nor would anything on record even lead a
reasonable mind to conclude that Lee was going to use the subject
video in order to achieve unlawful ends. Lee even made it clear in her
testimony that the only reason why she reproduced the subject video
was to legitimately utilize the same as evidence in the criminal and
administrative cases that she filed against Ilagan.
Court finds it proper to reverse the RTC Decision and dismiss the
habeas data petition.