Mcris

The Right Against

Unreasonable Searches & Seizures:
A BASIC GUIDE
By Atty. Alexis F. Medina 1
San Sebastian College, Institute of Law

SEC 3. x x x
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of x x x the preceding section
shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.
GUIDE OUTLINE
1.
2.
3.
4.

How
How
How
How

to
to
to
to

determine
determine
determine
determine

if the search or seizure violates the Constitutional prohibition

if the search or seizure is a government action
if the search or seizure is unreasonable
the legal consequences of the unlawful search or seizure

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

1.
2.

Protection guaranteed: Immunity of persons, not places

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

unreasonable

Rule: The search or seizure must be an action by the government or state, otherwise the
Constitutional prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures and the exclusionary rule will
not apply. 3
The protection against unreasonable searches and seizures proscribes only governmental
action. It is wholly inapplicable to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a
private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge
of any governmental official." 4
Reason: The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures applies as
a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of
the law. It could only be invoked against the State. 5 This is because Bill of Rights governs the
relationship between the individual and the state, and not the relation between private individuals. 6
Requirement No. 2: Unreasonable Search or Seizure
What the constitution prohibits are unreasonable searches and seizures.
The constitutional guarantee is not a blanket prohibition against all searches and seizures
as it operates only against unreasonable searches and seizures. Searches and seizures are as a
rule unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued search warrant or warrant of arrest. 7
Reasonableness is the touchstone of the validity of a government search or intrusion. 8
Reasonable searches and seizures are allowed
The Constitutional proscription against unreasonable searches and seizures does not, of
course, forestall reasonable searches and seizure. What constitutes a reasonable or even an
3

People v. Bangcarawan, 384 SCRA 525, 11 July 2002; People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57, 18 January 1991

United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984). Note that in the United States, the State Action Doctrine was originally applied to First Amendment rights (freedom of speeh, religion, association, assembly) and
Fourteenth Amendment rights (due process and equal protection).

a government or state action; and

Requirement No.1: Government/State action

I.
DOES THE SEARCH OR SEIZURE VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION?

Page |1

Basic Requirements for the constitutional prohibition to apply

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

"SECTION 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of
whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant
or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the
place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

People v. Bangcarawan, 384 SCRA 525, 11 July 2002; People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57, 18 January 1991; see also People v. Hipol, 407 SCRA 179, 22 July 2003)

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

See People v. Marti 18, 193 SCRA 57 January 1991; People v. Mendoza, 301 SCRA 66, 18 January 1999; Burdeau v. McDowell (256 US 465 (1921), State v. Bryan (457 P.2d 661 [1968]; Walker v. State (429 S.W.2d
121), Bernas v. US (373 F.2d 517)

People v. Valdez, 25 September 2000

People v. Libnao, 395 SCRA 407, 20 January 2003

Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, 570 SCRA 411, 03 November 2008

Mcris
unreasonable search in any particular case is purely a judicial question, determinable from a
consideration of the circumstances involved. 9

Page |2

The Constitution bars State intrusions to a person's body, personal effects or residence
except if conducted by virtue of a valid search warrant issued in compliance with the procedure
outlined in the Constitution and reiterated in the Rules of Court; otherwise such search and seizure
become unreasonable within the meaning of the aforementioned constitutional provision. 15

II.

2.

IS THE SEARCH OR SEIZURE A GOVERNMENT ACTION?

Unreasonable: Searches and seizures under an invalid warrant

If the search warrant is null and void, the searches and seizures made therein are illegal. 16
Rule: A search by a private individual, without the intervention of the police, is
not covered by the constitutional prohibition
If the search is made at the behest or initiative of the proprietor of a private establishment
for its own and private purposes, and without the intervention of police authorities, the right
against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked. 10

The search warrant must strictly comply with the requirements of the Constitution and the
statutory provisions. Failure to comply with any requirement mandated by law for the issuance of a
search warrant renders such search warrant invalid, the subsequent search unlawful, and evidence
obtained therefrom inadmissible. 17
If the search warrant is null and void, the searches and seizures made therein are illegal. 18

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

Requisites for a valid search warrant

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

III.
IS THE SEARCH OR SEIZURE UNREASONABLE?

A search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in connection with
one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination under
oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly
describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in
the Philippines. 20

Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

1.

Unreasonable: Searches and seizures without a warrant

A search and seizure must be carried through or with a judicial warrant; otherwise, such
search and seizure becomes unreasonable. 12 Searches, seizures and arrests are normally
unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued search warrant or warrant of arrest. 13

Probable cause for a search warrant: Defined

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

No arrest, search and seizure can be made without a valid warrant issued by a competent
judicial authority. The Constitution guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons,
houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. 14

Probable cause: How determined

15
People v. Chua Ho San, 17 June 1999

10
11

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

384 SCRA 525, 11 July 2002

12

People v. Nuevas, 516 SCRA 463, 22 February 2007; People v. Compacion, 361 SCRA 540, 20 July 2001; People v. Valdez, 345 SCRA 357, 25 September 2000; People v. Tudtud, 482 SCRA 142, 26 September 2003;
Pita v. Court of Appeals, 178 SCRA 362,05 October 1989; People v. Chua Ho San, 308 scra 432, 17 June 1999; People v. Barros, 231 SCRA 557, 565

13
14

David v. Macapagal-Arroyo 489 SCRA 162, 03 May 2006

People v. Valdez, 03 March 1999

16

People v. Chua Ho San, 17 June 1999; People v. Barros 231 SCRA 557, 565
See Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383, 19 June 1967; Bache and Co., (Phil.) Inc. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823, 27 February 1971

17

See People v. Mamaril 22, 420 SCRA 662, January 2004; PICOP v. Asuncion, 307 SCRA 253, 19 May 1999; See also Asian Surety v. Herrera, 54 SCRA 312, 20 December 1973; Alvarez v. CFI Tayabas, 64 Phil 33, 29
January 1937; Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800, December 1984

18
19
20
21

See Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383, 19 June 1967; Bache and Co., (Phil.) Inc. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823, 27 February 1971
Section 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution; Hon Ne Chan v. Honda Motor, 541 SCRA 249, 19 December 2007
Section 4, Rule 126, Rules of Court
Sony Music v. Espanol, et al., 453 SCRA 360, 14 March 2005; Nala v. Barroso, 408 SCRA 529, 07 August 2003; Santos v. Pryce Gases, 538 SCRA 474, 23 November 2007)

Mcris
To be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and his witnesses he may produce. 22
Probable cause: Personal knowledge required
Absent the element of personal knowledge by the applicant or his witnesses of the
facts upon which the issuance of a search warrant may be justified, the warrant is deemed
not based on probable cause and is a nullity, its issuance being, in legal contemplation,
arbitrary.23
Search warrant does not justify search & seizure of any evidence
A search warrant is not a sweeping authority for a fishing expedition to seize and
confiscate any and all kinds of evidence or articles relating to a crime. Nothing should be
left to the discretion of the officer executing the warrant. 24

Page |3

(5)
search when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable searches
and seizures (consented search);
(6)
stop and frisk (Terry search); and

(7)

search arising from exigent and emergency circumstances.27

Other warrantless searches that are reasonable and valid

In People v. Agulay
searches, specifically:

laws;

Test of particularity of description

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

28

, the Supreme Court enumerated other instances of valid warrantless

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

searches of automobiles at borders or constructive borders; and

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

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

GENERAL RULE:
A search or seizure by the government without a judicial warrant is
unreasonable and thus, illegal.

Under Section 6 of Commonwealth Act 613 or the Philippine Immigration Act as amended,
immigration inspectors are empowered to go aboard and search for aliens on any vessel or other
conveyance in which they believe aliens are being brought into the Philippines.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE:

VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCHES & SEIZURES:
A CLOSER LOOK

Warrantless searches that are reasonable and, thus, valid

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

(1) Search incident to a lawful arrest

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

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

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
22
23

search incident to a lawful arrest;

search of a moving motor vehicle;
search in violation of customs laws;
seizure of evidence in plain view;

There must first be a valid arrest before a search

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

Section 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution

(Sony Music v. Espanol, et al., 453 SCRA 360, 14 March 2005)

27

People v. Tudtud, 412 SCRA 427, 26 September 2006; Epie v. Ulat-Marredo, 518 SCRA 641, 22 March 2007; People v. Sarap 399 SCRA 503, March 26, 2003; People v. Nuevas, 516 SCRA 463, 22 February 2007;

People v. Valdez, 304 SCRA 140, 03 March 1999

24
25
26

(Unilab. Isip, 461 SCRA 575, 28 June 2005; People v. Francisco, 387 SCRA 569, 22 August 2002)
Bache and Co., (Phil.) Inc. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823, 27 February 1971; Columbia pictures versus court of Appeals, 262 SCRA 219, 20 September 1996; Uy v. BIR, 345 SCRA 36, 20 October 2000)
People v. Chua Ho San, 308 SCRA 432, 17 June 1999

28

26 September 2008

29
30

People v. Johnston 348 SCRA 526; People v. Macalaba 20 January 2003

Section 12, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure; People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592, 21 March 2000

Mcris

As to Area: Immediate Control Test

The seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons must be either on the person of
the one arrested or within the area of his immediate control. The phrase within the area
of his immediate control means the area from within which he might gain possession of a
weapon or destructible evidence. 32
Should be limited to the area within which the person to be arrested can reach for
a weapon or for evidence that he or she can destroy. 33

warrant

Search of moving vehicle principle applies to fishing vessels and boats

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

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

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

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

(3) Search in violation of customs laws

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

(2) Search of a moving motor vehicle

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

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

Visual search: Probable cause not required

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

33
34

37

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

38

Valeroso v. Court of Appeals, 3 September 2009, G.R. No. 16481; People v. Cubcubin, 360 SCRA 690, 10 July 2001

39

People v. Estella, 395 SCRA 553, 21 January 2003

40

People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592, 21 March 2000

35
36

People v. Binad Sy Chua, 396 SCRA 657, 04 February 2003; People v. Molina, 352 SCRA 174, 19 February 2001

Valeroso v. Court of Appeals, 3 September 2009, G.R. No. 16481; People v. Estella, 395 SCRA 553, 21 January 2003

People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592, 21 March 2000

Caballes v. Court of Appeals, 15 January 2002

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

Warrantless search of a moving vehicle is allowed only when it is not practicable

to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the area or
jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. 41

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

32

Page |4

Extensive search: Probable cause required

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

Limits to the scope of search incidental to a lawful arrest

31

41
42

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

People v. Libnao, 325 SCRA 407, 20 January 2003
People v. Lapitaje, 392 SCRA 674, 19 February 2003
People v. Lapitaje, 392 SCRA 674, 19 February 2003
Hizon v. CA, 265 SCRA 517, 13 December 1996

43

Papa v. Mago, 22 SCRA 257, 28 February 1968; see also Salvador v, People, 463 SCRA 489, 15 July 2005

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

The presumption is against waiver of constitutional right.

Scope
Limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons.

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

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

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

(5) Search when the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable
searches and seizures (consented search)
The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right which
may be waived expressly or impliedly. 49
Consent must be unequivocal, specific and intelligently given
The consent to the search must be voluntary, unequivocal, specific, and
intelligently given, uncontaminated by any duress or coercion. The consent to a search
must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. 50

(7) Search arising from exigent and emergency circumstances

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

Requisites for a valid waiver

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

46

People v. Nuevas, 576 SCRA 463; 22 February 2007; People v. Compacion, 361 SCRA 540, 20 July 2001
Unilab v. Isip, 461 SCRA 575, 28 June 2005

47
48
49
50

Unilab v. Isip, 461 SCRA 575, 28 June 2005

Unilab v. Isip, 461 SCRA 575, 28 June 2005

People v. Cubcubin, 360 SCRA 690, 10 July 2001
People v. Nuevas 22 February 2007, 576 SCRA 463

55

When stop and frisk is valid

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

Meaning of immediately apparent

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

45

54

(6) Stop and frisk (Terry search)

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

search warrant 46

Abelita v. Doria, 14 August 2009; People v. Doria, 301 SCRA 668,22 January 1999; People v. Lagman, 573 SCRA 225, 08 December 2008

Page |5

Peaceful submission is not consent

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

Elements of a valid seizure of evidence in plain view

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

44

51

People v. Nuevas, 576 SCRA 463, 22 February 2007

52

People v. Nuevas, 576 SCRA 463, 22 February 2007; People v. Comnpacion, 361 SCRA 540, 20 July 2009

53
54

People v. Burgos 144 SCRA 1, 1986; People v. Compacion, 361 SCRA 540, 20 July 2001; People v. Aruta 288 SCRA 626

55
56
57

People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1; People v. Compacion, 361 SCRA 540, 20 July 2001

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

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

Mcris
(c)

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

3.
If the items seized in an illegal search are contraband or prohibited by
law, the same cannot be returned to the owner. 66
However, objects and properties the possession of which is prohibited by law
cannot be returned to their owners notwithstanding the illegality of their seizure. 67

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

for any purpose in any proceeding. 59

(a)

is inadmissible to prove the guilt of the accused.

(b)

cannot be used to legally obtain other evidence.

4.
If the items seized in an illegal search are not contraband, the same
should be returned to the owner. 68
Seized items that are products of an illegal search, and are not contraband per
se, nor objects in connection with the offense, should be returned to the person from
whom the same were taken. 69

60

Evidence obtained from/as a result of evidence obtained in an illegal search would also
be inadmissible for being fruit of the poisonous tree.
Under, the exclusionary rule known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree," once the
primary source (the "tree") is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or
derivative evidence (the "fruit") derived from it is also inadmissible. The rule is based on
the principle that evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be used to gain other
evidence because the originally illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently
obtained.61

62
63

See People v. Sarap, 399 SCRA 503, 26 March 2003

See People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592, 21 March 2000 and People v. Rondero, 320 SCRA 383, 09 December 1999

64
58

also cited in People v. Aruta, 288 SCRA 626, 03 April 1998

59

Sections 2, and 3 [2], Art. III, 1987 Constitution; People v. Nuevas, 576 SCRA 463, 22 February 2007; See also People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592, 21 March 2000; People v. Sarap, 399 SCRA 503, 26 March
2003; People v. Bangcarawan, 384 SCRA 525, 11 July 2002

60
61

People v. Alicando 321 Phil 656, 12 December 1995; People v. Domantay 307 SCRA 1, 09 May 1999; People v. Conde, 356 SCRA 415, 10 April 2001

21 March 2000

65
66
67

See People v. Sarap, 399 SCRA 503, 26 March 2003; People v. Francisco, 387 SCRA 592, 22 August 2002; People v. Valdez, 341 SCRA 253, 25 September 2000; People v. Asis, 391 SCRA 108, 15 October 2002

62

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

WHAT ARE THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF

AN UNLAWFUL SEARCH OR SEIZURE?

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

cannot be used to justify a subsequent warrantless arrest.

Page |6

2. Even if the search was unlawful, and the evidence obtained was excluded,
the court may still convict the accused on the basis of other pieces of admissible
evidence. 63

IV.

1.
The exclusionary rule applies: Evidence obtained is inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding.

68
69

See also People v. Rondero 09 December 1999)

Castro v. Pabalan, 70 SCRA 477, 30 April 1976; People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592, 21 March 2000
People v. Che Chun Ting 21 March 2000
See Bache and Co., (Phil.) Inc. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823, 27 February 1971; Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800, 26 December 1984; Nala v. Barroso, 408 SCRA 529, 07 August 2003
See Nala v. Barroso 07 August 2003