WARRANTLESS SEARCHES
search.
GENERAL RULE: Searches and seizures may
only be valid if they are done pursuant to a
valid search warrant.
EXCEPTIONS: Unlike arrests, however, the
instances of valid warrantless searches are
not provided for by the Rules of Court, but
by jurisprudence.
a) Consented Searches
b) Search incidental to lawful arrest
c) Plain View Doctrine
d) Stop and Frisk or Terry Search
e) Search of Vessels and Aircrafts
f) Search of moving vehicles
g) Inspection of buildings and other
premises for the enforcement of
fire, sanitary and building
regulations
h) Customs Search
i) Exigent and Emergency
Circumstances
CONSENTED SEARCHES
Cases illustrating instances of a valid
consented search that is to say that the
right against unreasonable searches and
seizures was validly waived.
People vs. Omaweng G.R. No. 99050
FACTS: Omaweng in his vehicle was stopped in a
checkpoint for some search. The officers asked
for his consent as to whether they could open
the bag that was in his vehicle. He consented.
Thereafter prohibited drugs were found inside
the bag. Upon trial Omaweng argued that there
was a violation on his constitutional right
against unreasonable searches and seizures.
RULING: No, when he gave his consent to the
search the same amounted to a consented
search which is a ground for a valid warrantless
People vs. Lacerna G.R. No. 109250
Facts: Two accused were aboard a taxicab
with two bags on their possession. The cab
was flagged to stop in a checkpoint. The
officers then asked for the consent of the
accused to search the bag. Accused
confident that he did not do any wrong,
consented to the search. Prohibited drugs
were found inside the bag specifically
marijuana leaves.
Ruling: The consent to the search that was
granted by the accused to officers being a
generally recognized exception against
warrantless search validated such search
thereby making the things seized admissible
in evidence finding accused guilty of
violating the Dangerous Drugs Act.
A) In these cases, what were the criminal
charges involved and who were indicted for
them?
Answer: The criminal charges involved in
both cases are the same which is the
violation of Dangerous Drugs Act. The ones
who were indicted are the accused who
were caught in possession of dangerous
drugs after a valid warrantless consented
search was conducted.
B) In these cases, what were the items
seized and who seized them?
Answer: The items seized were dangerous
drugs. The one who seized them were
police officers in a checkpoint.
C) In these cases, how was the
waiver/consent given?
Answer: The waiver was given when the
accused gave his consent to the search.
D) May implied acquiescence be considered
as consent freely given?
Answer: Because such acquiescence was
not consent within the purview of
constitutional guaranty, but was merely
passive conformity to the search given
under intimidating and coercive
circumstance.
ARE SEARCHES MADE PURSUANT TO
ROUTINE AIRPORT SECURITY PROCEDURE
VALID?
People vs. Canton G.R. No. 148825
Facts: Accused was in the airport and after
she passed by the detector machine it
beeped and as a result a frisking officer
came and asked her permission to be
searched pursuant to a routine airport
security procedure. Suspicious materials
were felt by the frisking officer on the
accused body so accused was taken
somewhere private so that she could
remove her garments. And boom shabu was
found in her lady parts.
Ruling: Yes, searches made pursuant to a
routine airport security procedure are valid
since this constitutes an exception to the
proscription against warrantless searches
and seizures as authorized by R.A. 6235 and
it must be also noted that “Terry Searches”
or frisk searches is not limited to weapons
as accused argues but can also be used for
the search for prohibited materials or
substances.
People vs. Barros G.R. No. 90640
Facts: Accused was aboard a bus with a
carton box in his possession. Two policemen
were also aboard in the same bus and they
got suspicious of what was inside the box so
they asked the officers at the checkpoint at
Sabangan to inspect the box carried by
accused. After the search was conducted
they discovered kilos of dried marijuana in
the said carton box. Accused argues that
there was a violation on his constitutional
right against unreasonable searches and
seizures and prays that the items seized
should be inadmissible in evidence.
Ruling: SC ruled in favour of appellant
contending among others that such search
was invalid in the absence of probable
cause because as the record itself is
concerned, therefore, it would appear that
there existed no circumstance which might
reasonably excite the suspicion of the two
police officer riding the same bus as
appellant. There was, in other words,
nothing to show that appellant was then in
the process of “actually committing” or
“attempting to commit” a crime. The two
police officers, according to the record, had
no “personable knowledge of facts indicting
that the person to be arrested had
committed it. So there was in brief no basis
for a valid warrantless arrest. Accordingly,
the search and seizure of the carton box
was equally non-permissible and invalid.
The things seized were the fruits of an
invalid search and should therefore not
have been admitted in evidence against the
appellant.
Aniag vs. COMELEC G.R. 104961
Facts: Pursuant to a COMELEC resolution to
implement a Gun Ban, petitioner was
advised by the HOR’s Sgt-at-arms to return
the firearms issued to him by the HOR.
Thereafter petitioner then instructed his
driver to pick up said firearms from his
house. As the driver was going to return the
said firearm he was stopped in a checkpoint
headed by the PNP, search was conducted
and the gun that was neatly packed was
found thus the driver and as well as
petitioner were charged for violating the
COMELEC resolution or Gun Ban.
RULING: The SC deemed the firearms
inadmissible as evidence. Because there
was no probable cause or a circumstance
that would excite the suspicion of the PNP
that indeed guns were loaded in that car.
People vs. Tudtud G.R. No. 144037
Facts: An informant tipped the police that
Tudtud was in the business of selling
marijuana. A specific time and place was
given to the police by the informant,
informing them about Tudtud’s physical
appearance and that he would arrive
carrying a box containing marijuana. When
Tudtud came back he was apprehended by
the police and was told to open the box.
Inside the box the marijuana was found
wrapped in plastic. Hence this petition as to
whether such search was valid.
Ruling: Sc ruled in the negative, such search
was invalid since the police had no real
basis heavily relying on informant’s tip that
he also got from his neighbors thereby
amounting to a hearsay evidence. And that
there was also no probable cause in the
absence of personal knowledge on the part
of the police since there was no overt act
committed by Tudtud that he was
committing or attempting to commit a
crime.
1) What was the criminal charge involved
and who was indicted for them?
Answer: The criminal charge involved was a
violation against Dangerous Drugs Act.
Appellant Barros was indicted for the
charge.(People vs. Barros)
Answer: The criminal charge involved was a
violation of Gun Ban. The petitioner and his
driver were indicted.(Aniag vs. COMELEC)
Answer: The criminal charge involved was
illegal possession of prohibited drugs.
(People vs. Tudtud)
2) What were the items seized and who
seized them?
Answer: The item seized was a cartoon box
containing dried marijuana leaves. It was
seized by the officers on a checkpoint.
(People vs. Barros)
Answer: Firearms (Aniag vs. COMELEC)
Answer: Dried marijuana leaves(People vs.
Tudtud)
3) How was the purported waiver given?
Answer: According to the Sol Gen when the
appellant posted a bail bond, the same
constituted a waiver of irregularity
attending the arrest of a person and estops
him from questioning its validity.(People vs.
Barros)
Answer: That the seeming acquiescence of
the driver to the search constitutes an
implied waiver of petitioner’s right to
question the reasonableness of the search
and the seizure of firearms.(Aniag vs.
COMELEC)
Answer: When accused said that it was
alright to search the carton box that he was
carrying.(People vs. Tudtud)
4) Why were they not considered by the
Supreme Court as a valid waiver?
Answer: Because there was no intent on
the part of appellant to waive such right
under the premises when he objected to
the admission of such evidence.(People vs.
Barros)
Answer: Because while the COMELEC
resolution authorized the setting up of
checkpoints, it however stressed that
“guidelines shall be made to ensure that no
infringement of civil and political rights
results from the implementation of this
authority.” There was a clear violation of
the constitutional right against
unreasonable searches and seizures.(Aniag
vs. COMELEC)
Answer: Because in this case the officers
had no real basis for the search a
warrantless search is in derogation of a
constitutional right, peace officers who
conduct it cannot invoke regularity in the
performance of official functions and shift
to the accused the burden of proving that
the search was unconsented (People vs.
Tudtud)
People vs Damaso G.R. No. 93516
Facts: With the aid of Damaso’s helper, the
same allowed the entrance of the officers
and in plain view seen subversive materials
including a firearm. The items found were
used against Damaso charging the same
with illegal possession of firearms in
connection with subversion. Damaso argues
that such search was invalid but it was
contended by the officers that it was a valid
search since his right against unreasonable
searches and seizures was waived when his
helper allowed his place to be searched.
Ruling: We are not persuaded. The
constitutional immunity from unreasonable
searches and seizures, being a personal one
cannot he waived by anyone except the
person whose rights are invaded or one
who is expressly authorized to do so in his
or her behalf (De Garcia v. Locsin, 65 Phil.
689 695). In the case at bar, the records
show that appellant was not in his house at
that time Luz Tanciangco and Luz Morados,
his alleged helper, allowed the authorities
to enter it (TSN, October 31, 1989, p. 10).
We find no evidence that would establish
the fact that Luz Morados was indeed the
appellant's helper, or if it was true that she
was his helper, that the appellant had given
her authority to open his house in his
absence. The prosecution likewise failed to
show if Luz Tanciangco has such an
authority. Without this evidence, the
authorities' intrusion into the appellant's
dwelling cannot be given any color of
legality.