D.

SEARCHES AND SEIZURES

In re: Harvey v. Right is Available to All What is the case all

Santiago There can be no question that the right against about?
unreasonable searches and seizures guaranteed
by Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution,
is available to all persons, including aliens,
whether accused of crime or not. May an accused still
enjoy the right against
unreasonable searches?
How about aliens?
Yes.

People v. Marti, Protection does not cover acts of private What is the case all
G.R. No. 81561 individuals about?
If the search is made upon the request of law
enforcers, a warrant must generally be first secured Is the right available to
if it is to pass the test of constitutionality. However, acts of private
if the search is made at the behest or initiative of individuals?
the proprietor of a private establishment for its No.
own and private purposes, as in the case at bar, and
without the intervention of police authorities, the
right against unreasonable search and seizure
cannot be invoked for only the act of private
individual, not the law enforcers, is involved. In
sum, the protection
against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot
be extended to acts committed
by private individuals so as to bring it within the
ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the
government.
People v. Asis Waiver is possible; but must be personal; and What is the case all
requisites must be strictly observed about?

Primarily, the constitutional right against

unreasonable searches and seizures, being a Can the right be waived?
personal one, cannot be waived by anyone except How?
the person whose rights are invaded or who is Yes. See left column
expressly authorized to do so on his or her behalf.

To constitute a valid waiver, it must be shown

that first, the right exists; second,the person
involved had knowledge, actual or constructive, of
the existence of such a right; and third, the person
had an actual intention to relinquish the right. How
could Appellant Formento have consented to a
1
 warrantless search when, in the first place, he did
not understand what was happening at that
moment? The prosecution witnesses themselves
testified that there was no interpreter to assist him
— a deaf-mute — during the arrest, search and
seizure.

Verily, "courts indulge every reasonable

presumption against waiver of fundamental
constitutional rights and ...we do not presume
acquiescence [to] the loss of fundamental rights."

Villamor y Tayson Warrant of Arrest: waiver happens if objection is What is the case all
v. People, G.R. No. belatedly made; but exclusionary rule still applies about?
200396 The Court is aware that any question regarding the
legality of a warrantless arrest must be Can the objection to the
raised before arraignment. Failure to do so invalidity of the warrant
constitutes a waiver of the right to question the of arrest be made
legality of the arrest especially when the accused anytime?
actively participated during trial as in this case. No.
However, we have clarified that such waiver is
only confined to the defects of the arrest and not on Will the exclusionary rule
the inadmissibility of the evidence seized during be affected?
an illegal arrest. No.
Comerciante y Meaning of Exclusionary Rule What is the case all
Gonzales v. People, Section 2, Article III of the Constitution mandates about?
G.R. No. 205926, that a search and seizure must be carried out
July 22, 2015 through or on the strength of a judicial warrant What does the fruit of the
predicated upon the existence of probable cause; in poisonous tree mean?
the absence of such warrant, such search and
seizure becomes, as a general rule, "unreasonable"
within the meaning of said constitutional
provision. To protect people from unreasonable
searches and seizures, Section 3 (2), Article III of the
Constitution provides an exclusionary rule which
instructs that evidence obtained and confiscated on
the occasion of such unreasonable searches and
seizures are deemed tainted and should be
excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a
poisonous tree. In other words, evidence obtained
from unreasonable searches and seizures shall be
inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any
proceeding.

2
 WARRANT OF ARREST

Ho v. People, First Requisite: Probable Cause What is the case all

G.R. Nos. Probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest is the about?
106632 & existence of such facts and circumstances that would lead a
106678, October reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe that an Define probable
9, 1997 offense has been committed by the person sought to be cause in issuing a
arrested. Hence, the judge, before issuing a warrant of arrest, warrant of arrest.
"must satisfy himself that based on the evidence submitted See left column.
there is sufficient proof that a crime has been committed and
that the person to be arrested is probably guilty thereof."

|||

De Lima v. Second Requisite: Done by a Judge What is the case all

Guerrero, G.R. This Court has explicitly ruled that the findings of the about?
No. 229781 , prosecutor do not bind the judge. In People v. Honorable Enrique
October 10, B. Inting, et al.: Who has the duty
2017 to determine
First, the determination of probable cause is a function of probable cause in
the Judge. It is not for the Provincial Fiscal or Prosecutor nor the issuance of a
for the Election Supervisor to ascertain. Only the Judge and warrant of arrest?
the Judge alone makes this determination. Is it the judge or
Second, the preliminary inquiry made by a Prosecutor does not the prosecutor?
bind the Judge. It merely assists him to make It is the judge
the determination ofprobable cause. The Judge does not have
to follow what the Prosecutor presents to him. By itself the
Prosecutor's certification of probable cause is ineffectual. It is the
report, the affidavits, the transcripts of stereographic notes (if any),
and all other supporting documents behind the Prosecutor's
certification which are material in assisting the Judge to make his
determination.
And third, Judges and Prosecutors alike should distinguish the
preliminary inquiry which determines probable cause for the
issuance of awarrant of arrest from the preliminary
investigation proper which ascertains whether the offender
should be held for trial or released. Even if the two inquiries
are conducted in the course of one and the same proceeding,
there should be no confusion about the objectives.
The determinationof probable cause forthe warrant of arrest is
made by the Judge. The preliminary investigation proper —
whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the
accused is guilty of the offense charged and, therefore, whether
or not he should be subjected to the expense, rigors and
embarrassment of trial — is the function of the
Prosecutor. (Emphasis supplied)

3
 Thus, the determination of probable cause by the judge is not
inferior to the public prosecutor. In fact, this power of
the judge is constitutionally guaranteed.

The Constitution clearly mandates that the judge must make a

personal determination of probable cause, and jurisprudence
has expounded that it must be made independently from the
conclusion of the prosecutor. While the basis of their findings
may be the same in that they can consider the same evidences
and documents in coming to their conclusions, their
conclusions must be separate and independently made.

People v. Grey, Third Requisite: After personal examination What is the case all
G.R. No. about?
180109, July 26, In Soliven v. Makasiar, the Court explained that this
2010 constitutional provision does not mandatorily require
the judge to personally examine the complainant and her What does
witnesses. Instead, he may opt to personally evaluate the "personal
report and supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor examination"
or he may disregard the prosecutor's report and require the require? Does it
submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses. require a trial type
Thus, in Soliven, we said: proceeding?
No
What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and
personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of
the existence ofprobable cause. In satisfying himself of the
existence of probable cause for the issuance of
a warrant of arrest, the judge is not required to personally
examine the complainant and his witnesses. Following
established doctrine and procedure, he shall: (1) personally
evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted
by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and, on
the basis thereof, issue a warrant ofarrest; or (2) if on the basis
thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the
fiscal's report and require the submission of supporting
affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as
to the existence of probable cause.
Sound policy dictates this procedure, otherwise judges would
be unduly laden with the preliminary examination and
investigation of criminal complaints instead of concentrating
on hearing and deciding cases filed before their courts.

What the law requires as personal determination on the part of

a judge is that he should not rely solely on the report of the
investigating prosecutor. This means that the judge should
consider not only the report of the investigating prosecutor but
also the affidavit and the documentary evidence of the parties,
the counter-affidavit of the accused and his witnesses, as well
4
 as the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the
preliminary investigation, if any, submitted to the court by the
investigating prosecutor upon the filing of the Information.

The Court has also ruled that the personal examination of the
complainant and his witnesses is not mandatory and
indispensable in the determination of probable cause for the
issuance of a warrant of arrest. The necessity arises only when
there is an utter failure of the evidence to show the existence
of probable cause. Otherwise, the judge may rely on the report
of the investigating prosecutor, provided that he likewise
evaluates the documentary evidence in support thereof.

Pfleider v. The examination must require personal knowledge and not What is the case all
People, G.R. hearsay evidence about?
No. 208001 June
19, 2017 When In Agcaoili v. Aquino, a case involving parties that were
members of the bench, this Court made a categorical ruling Can hearsay
that hearsay evidence cannot be the basis of probable cause for evidence be the
the issuance of a warrant of arrest. A witness can testify only basis of probable
to those facts which he knows of his personalknowledge, that cause for the
is, which are derived from his own perception. Hearsay issuance of
evidence, therefore, has no probative value whatsoever. warrant of arrest?
No

Pangandaman Fourth Requisite: Persons must be particularly described What is the case all
v. Casar, G.R. Insofar, however, as said warrant is issued against fifty (50) about?
No. 71782, April "John Does" not one of whom the witnesses to the complaint
14, 1988 could or would identify, it is of the nature of a general warrant,
one of a class of writs long proscribed as unconstitutional and
once anathematized as "totally subversive of the liberty of the Are general
subject." Clearly violative of the constitutional injunction that warrants allowed?
warrants of arrest should particularly describe the person or No.
persons to be seized, the warrant must, as regards its
unidentified subjects, be voided.
Ongcoma Hadji Warrantless Arrest: In Flagrante What is the case all
Homar v. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal about?
People, G.R. Procedure provides the only occasions when a person may be
No. 182534 , lawfully arrested without a warrant. In the present case, the What does in
September 2, respondent alleged that the petitioner's warrantless arrest was flagrante arrest
2015 due to his commission of jaywalking in flagrante delicto and in mean?
the presence of Tan and Tangcoy.

To constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, two requisites

must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an
overt act indicating that
he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting

5
 to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the
presence of or within the view of the arresting officer.

People v. Common Type of In Flagrante: Buy-Bust/Entrapment What is the case all

Uzman y A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment employed by about?
Betican, G.R. peace officers to apprehend criminals in the act of committing
No. 229715 an offense. The buy-bust operation deserves judicial sanction if What is a buy-
(Notice), carried out with due regard for constitutional and legal bust/entrapment
November 20, safeguards. Accordingly, an arrest made after operation?
2017 an entrapment operation does not require a warrant inasmuch
as it is considered a valid warrantless arrest pursuant to Rule
113, Section 5 (a) of the Rules of Court. In the case of People v.
Juatan, the Court elucidated that:
A buy-bust operation is far variant from an ordinary arrest; it
is a form of entrapment which has repeatedly been accepted to
be a valid means of arresting violators of the Dangerous Drugs
Law. In a buy-bust operation the violator is caught in flagrante
delicto and the police officers conducting the operation are not
only authorized but duty-bound to apprehend the violator and
to search him for anything that may have been part of or used
in the commission of the crime.
Undoubtedly, the warrantless arrest of the appellant is
permissible and the sachet of shabu recovered from him during
the legitimate buy-bust operation was properly admitted in
evidence against him.

Go y Warrantless Arrest: Personal knowledge that a crime has just What is the case all
Tambunting v. been committed about?
Court of
Appeals, G.R. Petitioner's "arrest" took place six (6) days after the When is there
No. 101837, shooting of Maguan. The "arresting" officers obviously were "personal
February 11, not present, within the meaning ofSection 5(a), at the time knowledge" that a
1992 petitioner had allegedly shot Maguan. Neither could the crime "has just"
"arrest" effected six (6) days after the shooting be reasonably been committed?
regarded as effected "when [the shooting had] in fact just been
committed" within the meaning of Section 5 (b). Moreover,
none of the "arresting" officers had any "personal
knowledge" of facts indicating that petitioner was the gunman
who had shot Maguan. The information upon which the police
acted had been derived from statements made by alleged
eyewitnesses to the shooting — one stated that petitioner was
the gunman; another was able to take down the alleged
gunman's car's plate number which turned out to be registered

6
 in petitioner's wife's name. That information did not, however,
constitute "personal knowledge."

Reyes y Meaning of personal knowledge What is the case all

Capistrano v. On the other hand, Section 5 (b),Rule 113 requires for its about?
People, G.R. application that at the time of the arrest, an offense had in fact
No. 229380, just been committed and the arresting officer had personal What does
June 6, 2018 knowledge of facts indicating that the accused had committed personal
it. knowledge mean?
In both instances, the officer's personal knowledge of the fact
of the commission of an offense is essential. [The scenario
under] Section 5 (a), Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure [contemplates that] the officer himself witnesses the
crime; while in Section 5 (b) of the same, [the officer] knows for
a fact that a crime has just been committed."
Essentially, the validity of this warrantless arrest requires
compliance with the overt act test, showing that "the accused x
x x exhibit an overt act within the view of the police officers
suggesting that [she] was in possession of illegal drugs at the
time [she] was apprehended." Absent any overt act showing
the commission of a crime, the warrantless arrest is rendered
invalid, as in a case where a person was apprehended for
merely carrying a bag and traveling aboard a jeepney without
acting suspiciously. Similarly, in People v. Racho, a search
based solely on a tip describing one of the passengers of a bus
was declared illegal, since at the time of apprehension, the said
accused was not "committing a crime in the presence of the
police officers," nor did he commit a crime or was about to
commit one.

People v. Warrantless Arrest: Escaped prisoners What is the case all

Tokohisa The alleged crime happened on June 27, 1994 and appellant about?
Kimura, G.R. Kizaki was arrested on June 29, 1994 or two days after the
No. 130805, subject incident. At the time appellant Kizaki was arrested, he Was the accused
April 27, 2004 was at a restaurant having dinner with a group of friends, thus, an escaped
he was not committing or attempting to commit a crime. prisoner to justify
Neither was he an escaped prisoner whose arrest could be his warrantless
effected even without a warrant. It bears stressing that none of arrest?
the arresting officers of appellant Kizaki was present on the
night of June 27 where appellant Kizaki allegedly sold and
transported marijuana and escaped, thus the arresting officers
had no personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that
appellant Kizaki committed the crime. None of the exceptions

7
enumerated above was present to justify appellant Kizaki's
warrantless arrest

8
 SEARCH WARRANT

Santos v. Pryce First Requisite: Probable Cause What is the case all
Gases, Inc., G.R. Probable cause for a search warrant is defined about?
No. 165122, as such facts and circumstances which would lead a
November 23, 2007 reasonably discrete and prudent man to believe that an Define probable cause
offense has been committed and that the objects for issuance of search
sought in connection with the offense warrants.
are in the place sought to be searched.

A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on

evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime
has been committed and that it was committed by the
accused. Probable cause demands more than bare
suspicion; it requires less than evidence which would
justify conviction. The existence depends to a large
degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge
conducting the examination. However, the findings of
the judge should not disregard the facts before him nor
run counter to the clear dictates of reason.
Laud v. People, Second Requisite: Determined by a Judge What is the case all
G.R. No. 199032, Ultimately, in determining the existence about?
November 19, 2014 of probable cause, the facts and circumstances must be
personally examined by the judge in their totality, Who determines
together with a judicious recognition of the variable probable cause?
complications and sensibilities attending a criminal
case.
Silva v. Presiding Third Requisite: After examination, in the form of What is the case all
Judge, RTC of searching questions and answers about?
Negros Oriental, Thus, in issuing a search warrant, the judge must
Br. XXXIII, strictly comply with the constitutional and statutory How should the judge
Dumaguete City, requirement that he must determine the existence examine the witnesses?
G.R. No. 81756, of probable cause by personally examining the
October 21, 1991 applicant and his witnesses in the form of searching
questions and answers.
Kho v. Lanzanas, The answers must be based on personal knowledge What is the case all
G.R. No. 150877, A perspicacious examination of the records reveal that about?
May 4, 2006 the RTC of Manila, Branch 7, followed the prescribed
procedure for the issuance ofSearch Warrant No. 99- Is it sufficient for the
1520, namely, (1) the examination under oath or judge to rely on
affirmation of the Complainant and his witnesses and, personal knowledge of
in this case, Judge Enrico A. Lanzanas personally the witness?
examined complainant-policewoman SPO4 Nedita Yes
Alvario Balagbis, and Mr. Victor Chua, the
representative/officer of Summerville General
Merchandising, at the hearing on the application
for Search Warrant No. 99-1520 held on 10 January

9
 2000; (2) an examination personally conducted by then
Presiding Judge Lanzanas, in the form of searching
questions and answers, in writing and under oath, of
the complainant and witnesses on facts personally
known to them; and (3) the taking of sworn statements,
together with the affidavits submitted, which were
duly attached to the records.
In determining probable cause in the issuance of
a search warrant, the oath required must refer to the
truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the
applicant or his witnesses, because the purpose thereof
is to convince the committing magistrate, not the
individual making the affidavit and seeking the
issuance of the warrant, of the existence
of probable cause.

People v. Pastrana, Fourth Requisite: Particularity What is this case all

G.R. No. 196045, One of the constitutional requirements for the validity about?
February 21, 2018 of a search warrant is that it must be issued based on
probable cause which, under the Rules, must be in What are the
connection with one specific offense to prevent the requirements for
issuance of a scatter — shot warrant. In search warrant particularity? (specific
proceedings, probable cause is defined as such facts offense rule; and
and circumstances that would lead a reasonably description of items to
discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has be seized)
been committed and that the objects sought in
connection with the offense are in the place sought to
be searched.

In Bache and Co. (Phil.), Inc. v. Judge Ruiz, 56 it was

pointed out that one of the tests to determine the
particularity in the description of objects to be seized
under a search warrant is when the things described
are limited to those which bear direct relation to the
offense for which the warrant is being issued.

In addition, under the Rules of Court, the following

personal property may be the subject of a search
warrant: (i) the subject of the offense; (ii) fruits of the
offense; or (iii) those used or intended to be used as the
means of committing an offense.

Hon Ne Chan v. Test: No discretion on the part of officers What is the case all
Honda Motor Co., It is elemental that in order to be valid, about?
Ltd., G.R. No. a search warrant must particularly describe the place
172775, December to be searched and the things to be seized. The What are the tests to
19, 2007 constitutional requirement of determine the validity
reasonable particularity of description of the things to of the warrant as
10
 be seized is primarily meant to enable the law regards its
enforcers serving the warrant to: (1) readily identify particularity?
the properties to be seized and thus prevent them from
seizing the wrong items; and (2) leave said peace
officers with no discretion regarding the articles to be
seized and thus prevent unreasonable searches and
seizures. It is not, however, required that the things to
be seized must be described in precise and minute
detail as to leave no room for doubt on the part of the
searching authorities.
Caballes y Taiño v. Warrantless Search: Waiver What is the case all
Court of Appeals, about?
G.R. No. 136292, This Court is not unmindful of cases upholding the
January 15, 2002 validity of consented warrantless searches and seizure. What are the requisites
But in these cases, the police officers' request to search of a consented search?
personnel effects was orally articulated to the accused
and in such language that left no room for doubt that
the latter fully understood what was requested. In
some instance, the accused even verbally replied to the
request demonstrating that he also understood the
nature and consequences of such request.
In Asuncion vs. Court of Appeals, the apprehending
officers sought the permission of petitioner to search
the car, to which the latter agreed. Petitioner therein
himself freely gave his consent to said search. In People
vs. Lacerna, the appellants who were riding in a taxi
were stopped by two policemen who asked
permission to search the vehicle and the appellants
readily agreed. In upholding the validity of the
consented search, the Court held that appellant
himself who was "urbanized in mannerism and
speech" expressly said that he was consenting to the
search as he allegedly had nothing to hide and had
done nothing wrong. In People vs. Cuizon, the accused
admitted that they signed a written permission stating
that they freely consented to the search of their
luggage by the NBI agents to determine if they were
carrying shabu. In People vs. Montilla, it was held that
the accused spontaneously performed affirmative acts
of volition by himself opening the bag without being
forced or intimidated to do so, which acts should
properly be construed as a clear waiver of his right.
In People vs. Omaweng, the police officers asked the
accused if they could see the contents of his bag to
which the accused said "you can see the contents but
those are only clothings." Then the policemen asked if
they could open and see it, and accused answered "you

11
 can see it." The Court said there was a valid consented
search.
In case of consented searches or waiver of the
constitutional guarantee against obtrusive searches, it
is fundamental that to constitute awaiver, it must first
appear that (1) the right exists; (2) that the person
involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive,
of the existence of such right; and (3) the said person
had an actual intention to relinquish the right.

People v. Johnson, Airport Security is a form of waiver What is the case all
G.R. No. 138881, The methamphetamine hydrochloride seized from her about?
December 18, 2000 during the routine frisk at the airport was acquired
legitimately pursuant to airportsecurity procedures.
Persons may lose the protection of the search and
seizure clause by exposure of their persons or property
to the public in a manner reflecting a lack of subjective
expectation of privacy, which expectation society is
prepared to recognize as reasonable. Such recognition
is implicit in airport security procedures. With
increased concern over airplane hijacking and
terrorism has come increased security at the nation's
airports. Passengers attempting to board an aircraft
routinely pass through metal detectors; their carry-on
baggage as well as checked luggage are routinely
subjected to x-ray scans. Should these procedures
suggest the presence of suspicious objects, physical
searches are conducted to determine what the objects
are. There is little question that such searches are
reasonable, given their minimal intrusiveness, the
gravity of the safety interests involved, and the
reduced privacy expectations associated with airline
travel. Indeed, travelers are often notified
through airportpublic address systems, signs, and
notices in their airline tickets that they are subject to
search and, if any prohibited materials or 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.

Manalili v. Court Warrantless Search: Stop-and-Frisk What is the case all

of Appeals, G.R. We disagree with petitioner and hold that the search about?
No. 113447, was valid, being akin to a stop-and-frisk. In the
October 9, 1997 landmark case of Terry vs. Ohio, a stop-and-frisk was What is the stop-and-
defined as the vernacular designation of the right of a frisk doctrine?

12
 police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate
him, and pat him for weapon(s):
"...(W)here a police officer observes an unusual
conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in
light of his experience that criminal activity may be
afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing
may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the
course of investigating this behavior he identified
himself as a policeman and makes reasonable
inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the
encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his
own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection
of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully
limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in
an attempt to discover weapons which might be used
to assault him. Such a search is a reasonable search
under the Fourth Amendment, and any weapon seized
may properly be introduced in evidence against the
person from whom they were taken."
In allowing such a search, the United States Supreme
Court held that the interest of effective crime
prevention and detection allows a police officer to
approach a person, in appropriate circumstances and
manner, for purposes of investigating possible
criminal behavior even though there is insufficient
probable cause to make an actual arrest.

People v. Calantiao Warrantless Search: Incident to a Lawful Arrest What is the case all
y Dimalanta, G.R. The purpose of allowing a warrantless search and about?
No. 203984, June seizure incident to a lawful arrest is "to protect the
18, 2014 arresting officer from being harmed by the person What is the principle
arrested, who might be armed with a concealed behind allowing
weapon, and to prevent the latter from destroying searches during a
evidence within reach." It is therefore a reasonable lawful arrest?
exercise of the State's police power to protect (1) law
enforcers from the injury that may be inflicted on them
by a person they have lawfully arrested; and (2)
evidence from being destroyed by the arrestee. It seeks
to ensure the safety of the arresting officers and the
integrity of the evidence under the control and within
the reach of the arrestee.
In People v. Valeroso, this Court had the occasion to
reiterate the permissible reach of a
valid warrantless search and
seizure incident to alawful arrest, viz.:
When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the
arresting officer to search the person arrested in order
to remove any weapon that the latter might use in
13
 order to resist arrest or effect his escape. Otherwise, the
officer's safety might well be endangered, and the
arrest itself frustrated. In addition, it is entirely
reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and
seize any evidence on the arrestee's person in order to
prevent its concealment or destruction.
Moreover, in lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty
and the right of the apprehending officers to conduct
a warrantless search not only on the person of the
suspect, but also in the permissible area within the
latter's reach. Otherwise stated, a valid arrest allows
the seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons
either on the person of the one arrested or within the
area of his immediate control. The phrase "within the
area of his immediate control" means the area from
within which he might gain possession of a weapon or
destructible evidence. A gun on a table or in a drawer
in front of one who is arrested can be as dangerous to
the arresting officer as one concealed in the clothing of
the person arrested. (Citations omitted.)

Sy y Tibagong v. Arrest must precede the search What is the case all
People, G.R. No. In searches incident to a lawful arrest, about?
182178, August 15, the arrest must precede the search; generally, the
2011 process cannot be reversed. Nevertheless, a search
substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can
precede the arrest if the police have probable cause to
make the arrest at the outset of the search. Although
probable cause eludes exact and concrete definition, it
ordinarily signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that
the person accused is guilty of the offense with which
he is charged.
Roldan, Jr. v. Arca, Warrantless Search: Search of Vessel What is the case all
G.R. No. L-25434, Search and seizure without search warrant of vessels about?
July 25, 1975 and air crafts for violations of the customs laws have
been the traditional exception to the constitutional What is the reason
requirement of a search warrant, because the vessel behind not requiring
can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction search warrants for
in which the searchwarrant must be sought before vessel?
such warrant could be secured; hence it is not
practicable to require a search warrant before
such search or seizure can be constitutionally effected
(Papa vs. Mago, L-27360, Feb. 28, 1968, 22 SCRA 857,
871-74; Magoncia vs. Palacio, 80 Phil. 770, 774; Carroll
vs. U.S. 267, pp. 132, 149, 158; Justice Fernando, The

14
 Bill of Rights, 1972 ed., p. 225; Gonzales, Philippine
Constitutional Law, 1966 ed., p. 300).
The same exception should apply to seizures of fishing
vessels breaching our fishery laws: They are usually
equipped with powerful motors that enable them to
elude pursuing ships of the Philippine Navy or Coast
Guard.

People v. Bagista y Warrantless Search: Moving Vehicles What is the case all
Bangco, G.R. No. With regard to the search of moving vehicles, this had about?
86218, September been justified on the ground that the mobility of motor
18, 1992 vehicles makes it possible for the vehicle to be searched What is the limitation
to move out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the for warrantless
warrant must be sought. searches for moving
This in no way, however, gives the police officers vehicles?
unlimited discretion to conduct warrantless searches
of automobiles in the absence of probable cause. When
a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive
search, such a warrantless search has been held to be
valid only as long as the officers conducting the search
have reasonable or probable cause to believe before the
search that they will find the instrumentality or
evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be
searched.

Valmonte v. De Example: Checkpoint of Vehicles What is the case all

Villa, G.R. No. Admittedly, the routine checkpoint stop does intrude, about?
83988, May 24, 1990 to a certain extent, on motorist's right to "free passage
without interruption", but it cannot be denied that, as Are checkpoints
a rule, it involves only a brief detention of travellers constitutional?
during which the vehicle's occupants are required to
answer a brief question or two. For as long as the
vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected
to a body search, and the inspection of the vehicle is
limited to a visual search, said routine checks cannot
be regarded as violative of an individual's right against
unreasonable search.
These routine checks, when conducted in a fixed area,
are even less intrusive.

As already stated, vehicles are generally allowed to

pass these checkpoints after a routine inspection and a
few questions. If vehicles are stopped and extensively
searched, it is because of some probable cause which
justifies a reasonable belief of the men at the
checkpoints that either the motorist is a law-offender
or the contents of the vehicle are or have been
instruments of some offense.
15
People v. Warrantless Search: Inspection of Buildings What is the case all
Compacion y The requirement that a warrant must be obtained from about?
Surposa, G.R. No. the proper judicial authority prior to the conduct of a
124442, July 20, search and seizure is, however, not absolute. There are When can buildings be
2001 several instances when the law recognizes exceptions, inspected without a
such as x x x in cases of inspection of buildings and warrant?
other premises for the enforcement of fire, sanitary
and building regulations. In these instances, a search
may be validly made even without a warrant.
People v. Musa y Warrantless Search: Plainview Doctrine What is the case all
Hantatalu, G.R. The warrantless search and seizure, as an incident to a about?
No. 96177, January suspect's lawful arrest, may extend beyond the person
27, 1993 of the one arrested to include the premises or What is the plainview
surroundings under his immediate control. Objects in doctrine?
the "plain view" of an officer who has the right to be in
the position to have that view are subject to seizure
and may be presented as evidence.

The "plain view" doctrine may not, however, be used

to launch unbridled searches and indiscriminate
seizures nor to extend a general
exploratorysearch made solely to find evidence of
defendant's guilt. The "plain view" doctrine is usually
applied where a police officer is not searching for
evidence against the accused, but nonetheless
inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. 45
Furthermore, the U.S. Supreme Court stated the
following limitations on the application of the
doctrine:

"What the 'plain view' cases have in common is that

the police officer in each of them had a prior
justification for an intrusion in the course of which he
came inadvertently across a piece of evidence
incriminating the accused. The doctrine serves to
supplement the prior justification — whether it be a
warrant for another object, hot pursuit, search incident
to lawful arrest, or some other legitimate reason for
being present unconnected with asearch directed
against the accused — and permits the warrantless
seizure. Of course, the extension of the original
justification is legitimate only where it is immediately
apparent to the police that they have evidence before
them; the 'plain view' doctrine may not be used to
extend a general exploratory search from one object to

16
 another until something incriminating at last
emerges."

It has also been suggested that even if an object is

observed in "plain view," the "plain view" doctrine will
not justify the seizure of the object where the
incriminating nature of the object is not apparent from
the "plain view" of the object. Stated differently, it
must be immediately apparent to the police that the
items that they observe may be evidence of a crime,
contraband, or otherwise subject to seizure.

People v. De Warrantless Search: Exigent Circumstances What is the case all

Gracia, G.R. Nos. Furthermore, under the situation then prevailing, the about?
102009-10, July 6, raiding team had no opportunity to apply for and
1994 secure a search warrant from the courts. The trial
judge himself manifested that on December 5, 1989
when the raid was conducted, his court was
closed. Under such urgency and exigency of the
moment, a search warrant could lawfully be
dispensed with.

17
 E. RIGHT TO PRIVACY

Spouses Hing v. Test to Determine Violation of Right to Privacy What is the case all about?
Choachuy, Sr., G.R. In ascertaining whether there is a violation of
No. 179736, June 26, the right to privacy, courts use the "reasonable
2013 expectation of privacy" test. This test What is the test to determine
determines whether a person has a reasonable the violation of the right to
expectation of privacy and whether the privacy?
expectation has been violated. In Ople v. TEST:
Torres, we enunciated that "the reasonableness (1) whether, by his conduct,
of a person's expectation of privacy depends the individual has exhibited
on a two-part test: (1) whether, by his conduct, an expectation of privacy;
the individual has exhibited an expectation of and
privacy; and (2) this expectation is one that (2) this expectation is one
society recognizes as reasonable." Customs, that society recognizes as
community norms, and practices may, reasonable."
therefore, limit or extend an individual's
"reasonable expectation of privacy." Hence,
the reasonableness of a person's expectation of
privacy must be determined on a case-to-case
basis since it depends on the factual
circumstances surrounding the case.
Zulueta v. CA Husband and wife privacy What is the case all about?
The documents and papers in question are
inadmissible in evidence. The constitutional Are the acts done by the
injunction declaring the privacy of communication wife valid?
and correspondence [to be] inviolable is no less No, they are unconstitutional
applicable simply because it is the wife (who thinks and the documents are
herself aggrieved by her husbands infidelity) who inadmissible as evidence.
is the party against whom the constitutional
provision is to be enforced.

The only exception to the prohibition in the

Constitution is if there is a lawful order [from a]
court or when public safety or order requires
otherwise, as prescribed by law. Any violation of
this provision renders the evidence obtained
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
The intimacies between husband and wife do not
justify any one of them in breaking the drawers and
cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any
telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by
contracting marriage, does not shed his/her
integrity or his right to privacy as an individual
and the constitutional protection is ever available
to him or to her.

18
 The law insures absolute freedom of
communication between the spouses by making
it privileged. Neither husband nor wife may testify
for or against the other without the consent of the
affected spouse while the marriage subsists.
Neither may be examined without the consent of
the other as to any communication received in
confidence by one from the other during the
marriage, save for specified exceptions. But one
thing is freedom of communication; quite
another is a compulsion for each one to share
what one knows with the other. And this has
nothing to do with the duty of fidelity that each
owes to the other.

Lee v. Ilagan Particulars of a Writ of Habeas Data and What is the case all about?
Justification for its issuance
What is the purpose of the
In this case, the Court finds that Ilagan was not Writ of Habeas Data?
able to sufficiently allege that his right to privacy It was conceptualized as a
in life, liberty or security was or would be violated judicial remedy enforcing the
through the supposed reproduction and right to privacy, most
threatened dissemination of the subject sex video. especially the right to
While Ilagan purports a privacy interest in the informational privacy of
suppression of this video – which he fears would individuals, which is defined as
somehow find its way to Quiapo or be uploaded in “the right to control the
the internet for public consumption – he failed to collection, maintenance, use,
explain the connection between such interest and and dissemination of data about
any violation of his right to life, liberty or security. oneself.”
Indeed, courts cannot speculate or contrive
versions of possible transgressions. As the rules What must a Petition for
and existing jurisprudence on the matter evoke, Habeas Data show to allow its
alleging and eventually proving the nexus issuance?
between one’s privacy right to the cogent rights to The petition must adequately
life, liberty or security are crucial in habeas show that there exists a nexus
datacases, so much so that a failure on either between the right to privacy on
account certainly renders a habeas data petition the one hand, and the right to
dismissible, as in this case. life, liberty or security on the
other.
Thus, in order to support a petition for the (Look purposely fo the word
issuance of such writ, Section 6 of the Habeas “NEXUS”)
Data Rule essentially requires that the petition
sufficiently alleges, among others, “[t]he manner
the right to privacy is violated or threatened and
how it affects the right to life, liberty or security
of the aggrieved party.”

In other words, 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 . Corollarily, the
allegations in the petition must be supported
19
 by substantial evidence showing an actual or
threatened violation of the right to privacy in life,
liberty or security of the victim. In this relation, it
bears pointing out that the writ of habeas data will
not issue to protect purely property or commercial
concerns nor when the grounds invoked in
support of the petitions therefor are vague and
doubtful.
Vivares v. St. Meaning of Right to Privacy: The Facebook What is the case all about?
Theresa's College, Case
G.R. No. 202666, The right to informational privacy on Is there right to privacy in
September 29, 2014 Facebook social media?
a. The Right to Informational Privacy
The concept of privacy has, through time,
greatly evolved, with technological
advancements having an influential part
therein. This evolution was briefly recounted
in former Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno's
speech, The Common Right to Privacy, where
he explained the three strands of
theright to privacy, viz.: (1) locational or
situational privacy; (2) informational privacy;
and (3) decisional privacy. Of the three, what
is relevant to the case at bar is
the right to informational privacy — usually
defined as the right of individuals to control
information about themselves.

It is due to this notion that the Court saw the

pressing need to provide for judicial remedies
that would allow a summary hearing of the
unlawful use of data or information and to
remedy possible violations of
the right to privacy. In the same vein, the
South African High Court, in its Decision in
the landmark case, H v. W, promulgated on
January 30, 2013, recognized that "[t]he law has
to take into account the changing realities not
only technologically but also socially or else it
will lose credibility in the eyes of the people. .
. . It is imperative that the courts respond
appropriately to changing times, acting
cautiously and with wisdom." Consistent with
this, the Court, by developing what may be
viewed as the Philippine model of the writ
of habeas data, in effect, recognized that,
generally speaking, having an expectation of
informational privacy is not necessarily

20
 incompatible with engaging in cyberspace
activities, including those that occur in OSNs.

Disini, Jr. v. Secretary Right to Privacy and Cybercrime Law What is the case all about?
of Justice, G.R. Nos. The right to privacy, or the right to be let alone,
203335, 203299, was institutionalized in the 1987 Constitution Does the cybercrime law
203306, 203359, as a facet of the right protected by the violate an individual's right
203378, 203391, guarantee against unreasonable searches and to privacy?
203407, 203440, seizures. But the Court acknowledged its
203453, 203454, existence as early as 1968 in Morfe v. Mutuc, it
203469, 203501, Related to the right against
ruled that the rightto privacy exists
203509, 203515 & reasonable searches and
independently of its identification with liberty; seizure, the Cybercrime
203518, February 18, it is in itself fully deserving of constitutional Prevention Act authorizes the
2014 protection. DOJ to issue an order to restrict
Relevant to any discussion of or block access to computer
the right to privacy is the concept known as data when it is prima facie
the "Zones of Privacy." The Court explained found to be in violation of the
in "In the Matter of the Petition for Issuance of provisions of the law. Is this
constitutional?
Writ of Habeas Corpus of Sabio v. Senator
Gordon" the relevance of these zones to A: No. Since computer data
the right to privacy: constitutes personal property,
Zones of privacy are recognized and protected they are protected from
in our laws. Within these zones, any form of unreasonable searches and
intrusion is impermissible unless excused by seizures. The government, in
law and in accordance with customary legal effect, seizes and places the
process. The meticulous regard we accord to computer data under its control
these zones arises not only from our conviction and disposition without a
that the rightto privacy is a "constitutional warrant. (Disini v. Sec. of
Justice, 2014)
right" and "the right most valued by civilized
men," but also from our adherence to the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights which
mandates that, "no one shall be subjected to
arbitrary interference with his privacy" and
"everyone has the right to the protection of the
law against such interference or attacks."

Two constitutional guarantees create these

zones of privacy: (a) the right against
unreasonable searches and seizures, which is
the basis of the right to be let alone, and (b)
the right to privacy of communication and
correspondence.

21
In assessing the challenge that the State has
impermissibly intruded into these zones of
privacy, a court must determine whether a
person has exhibited a reasonable expectation
of privacy and, if so, whether that expectation
has been violated by unreasonable
government intrusion.

ndeed, the Court recognizes in Morfe v.

Mutuc that certain constitutional guarantees
work together to create zones of privacy
wherein governmental powers may not
intrude, and that there exists an independent
constitutional right of privacy. Such right to be
left alone has been regarded as the beginning
of all freedoms.

But that right is not unqualified. In Whalen v.

Roe, the United States Supreme Court
classified privacy into two categories:
decisional privacy and informational privacy.
Decisional privacy involves the right to
independence in making certain important
decisions, while informational privacy refers
to the interest in avoiding disclosure of
personal matters. It is the latter right —
the right to informational privacy — that
those who oppose government collection or
recording of traffic data in real-time seek to
protect. DECcAS
Informational privacy has two aspects: the
right not to have private information
disclosed, and the right to live freely without
surveillance and intrusion. In determining
whether or not a matter is entitled to
the right to privacy, this Court has laid down a
two-fold test. The first is a subjective test,
where one claiming the right must have an
actual or legitimate expectation of privacy over
a certain matter. The second is an objective test,
where his or her expectation of privacy must
be one society is prepared to accept as
objectively reasonable.

22