Rule 126 Search

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (2002 Edition) <draft copy; pls.
check for errors>

Rule 126 SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Rule 126 Search and Seizure
We will now go to Rule 126 Search and Seizure. This is one of the most controversial rules. This is as confusing sometimes as the jurisprudence on warrantless arrests in Rule 11 when may an arrest be made . !to naman" Rule 126 when may there be a valid search and seizure . #enerall$" peace officers are not allowed to conduct search and seizures if the$ have no search warrants. So this is again a review of %onstitutional &aw. '( )ow do $ou define a search warrant* +( ,ou have Section 1( SECTION 1. Search warrant defined. A search warrant is an r!er in writin" issue! in the na#e $ the %e &le $ the %hili&&ines' si"ne! () a *u!"e an! !irecte! t a &eace $$icer' c ##an!in" hi# t search $ r &ers nal &r &ert) !escri(e! therein an! (rin" it (e$ re the c urt. +1, -ow let.s go to Section 2 which is an entirel$ new provision( SEC. 2. Court where application for search warrant shall be filed. An a&&licati n $ r search warrant shall (e $ile! with the $ ll win"+a, An) c urt within wh se territ rial *uris!icti n a cri#e was c ##itte!. +(, . r c #&ellin" reas ns state! in the a&&licati n' an) c urt within the *u!icial re"i n where the cri#e was c ##itte! i$ the &lace $ the c ##issi n $ the cri#e is /n wn' r an) c urt within the *u!icial re"i n where the warrant shall (e en$ rce!. H we0er' i$ the cri#inal acti n has alrea!) (een $ile!' the a&&licati n shall nl) (e #a!e in the c urt where the cri#inal acti n is &en!in". +n, This provision was ta/en from the ruling of the S% in the leading case of 0+&+&1+- vs. %+ 22 2 S%R+ 234 5144367 which was reiterated in the case of 8918&9 vs. %+ 2241 S%R+ 3::7. 1A2A2OAN vs. COURT O. A%%EA2S 232 SCRA 245 6( %an a search warrant issued ;$ let.s sa$" a <avao %it$ court ;e enforced in an$ other place outside of <avao %it$* A- ,9S" ;ecause a search warrant is merel$ a court process. !t should not ;e confused with the correct venue for the filing of the case. =ut here" there is no case. We are onl$ tal/ing a;out search and seizure which is a mere court process. !t has nothing to do with the filing of a criminal case. So $ou cannot limit the power of the search warrant onl$ within the place where the crime was committed. >urthermore" search warrants are usuall$ applied ;$ law enforcement officers and it is too much to re?uire peace officers to /now in advance where is the pro;a;le venue of the criminal case. +nd ;ased on the interim rules" there is a statement there that xxx writs of certiorari, prohibition, habeas corpus, etc of the RTC are enforceable only within the re ion. !ll other writs or processes are enforceable throu hout the country." +nd a search warrant fall under the general provision all other writs xxx". 1f course" under the last paragraph" when there is alread$ a case filed in court" then all search warrants in connection with a pending case can onl$ ;e issued ;$ the court where the case is pending. This was also ta/en in #alaloan. So that is the histor$ of that provision. SEC. 3. $ersonal property to be seized. A search warrant #a) (e issue! $ r the search an! sei7ure $ &ers nal &r &ert)-
213
Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (2002 Edition) <draft copy; pls. check for errors>
+a, Su(*ect $ the $$ense8 +(, St len r e#(e77le! an! ther &r cee!s' r $ruits $ the $$ense8 r +c, Use! r inten!e! t (e use! as the #eans $ c ##ittin" an $$ense. +2a,
Ta/e note that onl$ personal propert$ ma$ ;e seized pursuant to a search warrant. lets us connect this with Section 3( SEC. 4. Re%uisites for issuin search warrant. A search warrant shall n t issue e9ce&t u& n &r (a(le cause in c nnecti n with ne s&eci$ic $$ense t (e !eter#ine! &ers nall) () the *u!"e a$ter e9a#inati n un!er ath r a$$ir#ati n $ the c #&lainant an! the witness he #a) &r !uce' an! &articularl) !escri(in" the &lace t (e searche! an! the thin"s t (e sei7e! which #a) (e an)where in the %hili&&ines. +3a, SEC. :. &xamination of complainant' record. The *u!"e #ust' (e$ re issuin" the warrant' &ers nall) e9a#ine in the $ r# $ searchin" ;uesti ns an! answers' in writin" an! un!er ath' the c #&lainant an! the witnesses he #a) &r !uce n $acts &ers nall) /n wn t the# an! attach t the rec r! their sw rn state#ents' t "ether with the a$$i!a0its su(#itte!. +4a, '( What are the re?uisites for the issuance of a search warrant* +( There are five 2@7 re?uisites for the issuance of a search warrant( 1. There must ;e an application which must ;e under oathA 2. There must ;e an affidavit in support of the application. The affidavit must ;e ;ased on the personal /nowledge of the affiant. That is wh$ under Section @" the judge must" ;efore issuing the warrant" personall$ eBamine in the form of searching ?uestions and answers" in writing and under oath" the complainant and his witnesses to find out what the affiant reall$ /now what he is tal/ing a;out. +nd ever$thing must ;e reduced in writing. -ow" $ou cannot appl$ here in Rule 126 the ruling in (im vs. )elix that a judge can just loo/ at the affidavits and determine whether to issue or not to issue a warrant of arrest. The ruling in (im is ;ased on the issuance of warrant of arrest after preliminar$ investigation. =ut we are tal/ing here 2Rule 1267 of a search warrant. )ere" it must ;e literal there must reall$ ;e a personal eBamination. . The search warrant must particularl$ descri;e the place or the person to ;e searched and the things to ;e seizedA 3. There is pro;a;le cause for its issuanceA '( What do $ou mean ;$ probable cause for the purpose of issuing a search warrant* +( 8ro;a;le cause refers to such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasona;l$ discreet and prudent man to ;elieve that an offense has ;een committed and that the item2s7" article2s7 or o;ject2s7 sought in connection with said offense or su;ject to seizure and destruction ;$ law is in the place to ;e searched. 28eople vs. 9ncinada" 1cto;er 2" 144C7. !n one case" the S% said that pro;a;le cause does not mean actual and positive cause" nor does it import a;solute certaint$. The re?uirement is less than certainty or proof, but more than suspicion or possibility. 2%olum;ia 8ictures vs. %+" +ugust 26" 14467 @. The search warrant shall ;e issued in connection with ;ut one offense. So for eBample" ! suspect that in $our ;uilding" there are man$ o;jects there. There are unlicensed firearms. 0eron din di$an sha;u. +nd there are also smuggled goods. So three laws are violated illegal possession of firearms" prohi;ited drugs" and customs law. So gawa ta$o ng isang search warrant lang to seize those o;jects sha;u" firearms" smuggled goods ah hindi puwede $anD ;ecause Eone search warrant" one offense.F So there must ;e three
214
different search warrants. 1therwise the search warrant is a under the %onstitution.

eneral warrant which is prohi;ited
+nd one of the leading case regarding on that issue is the case of ST*+&,--(( vs. .-*/+* 22: S%R+ G 7 where a search warrant was issued against an +merican ;usinessman who had a violation daw ng -!R%" R8%" etc. giHone time ;aD +nd it was declared as null and void ;$ the S% ;ecause there were so man$ items which were allegedl$ seized in connection with violation of different laws li/e -!R%" R8%" %entral =an/ +ct. That is a general warrant. )owever" if we go ;$ jurisprudence on general warrants" it is not reall$ necessar$ that in order to ;e classified as a general warrant" it was issued for several offenses under different laws. >or eBample in the case of <UR=OS' SR. vs. CHIE. O. STA.. Dece#(er 26' 15>4 +134 SCRA, .ACTS( + search warrant was issued to raid the editorial offices of #etropolitan #ail and 0e )orum 2predecessor of #alaya1 somewhere in 'uezon %it$. What were going to ;e confiscated were materials" pamphlets" printing machines to stop the paper from pu;lishing on the alleged violation of +ntiHSu;version +ct 28< GG@7 during the time of 0arcos. =urgos challenged the validit$ of the search warrant ;efore the S%. ISSUE ?1( +ccording to =urgos" E,ou cannot seize those things ;ecause ! am not the owner of those. ! am just leasing them.F %an $ou onl$ seize from some;od$ o;jects which he owned* HE2D( -1" ;ecause there is no provision in the law to that effect. +nd under Section " $ou can seize stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the offense." >or eBample" $ou can issue a warrant to seize stolen propert$ from a thief or ro;;er. !s the thief or ro;;er the owner the owner of those stolen propert$* 1f course notD So" there is no re?uirement that $ou can onl$ seize it from its owner. Talo si =urgos sa issue na $an. ISSUE ?2( +ccording to =urgos" $ou cannot seize the printing e?uipments ;ecause under the law $ou can onl$ seize personal propert$. These printing machines are all attached to the ;uilding and under the law on 8ropert$" when a machiner$ is attached to the immova;le" it ;ecomes immova;le or real propert$ also. +nd $ou cannot seize a real propert$. HE2D- ,ou are correct =IT there is an 9J%98T!1- if the machine is attached ;$ some;od$ who is not the owner of the ;uilding" then the machine is still a mova;le propert$. So" tinamaan na naman si$a dun. ISSUE ?3( Was the search warrant a general warrant* HE2D( ,9S. What were seized were paraphernalia" pamphlets" printing machines" etc. which" according to the search warrant" were used in committing the crime of su;version under 8< GG@. So there is onl$ one law violated unli/e in the case of Stonehill na marami. =ut sa;i ng S%" the search warrant is a general warrant. !t is true that there is onl$ one law violated ;ut there are man$ sections in the <ecree. ,ou must allege the section violated" otherwise it ;ecomes a general warrant. So if $ou just sa$ that the search warrant is for violation of a law" then that is a general warrant. ,ou must point out the section which was allegedl$ violated. So in the case of 2ur os" the search warrant was declared as a general warrant inspite of the fact that onl$ one law was violated. +s a matter of fact" the concurring opinion of former 3ustice +;ad Santos was clearer eh. )e said" E!n the case at ;ar nothing specificall$ su;versive has ;een allegedA stated onl$ is the claim that certain o;jects were ;eing used as instruments and means of committing the offense of su;version punisha;le under 8.<. -o. GG@" as amended. There is no mention of an$ specific provision of the decree. !t would ;e legal heres$" of the highest order" to convict an$;od$ of violating the decree without reference to an$ determinate provision thereof. EThe o;vious ?uestion is( Wh$ were the documents" pamphlets" leaflets" ;oo/s" etc. su;versive* What did the$ contain to ma/e them su;versive* There is nothing in the applications nor in the warrants which answers the
215
?uestions. ! must" therefore" conclude that the warrants are %onstitution.F &et.s distinguish 2ur os in the case of O2AES vs. %EO%2E 1:: SCRA 4>6 @15>AB
eneral warrants which are o;noBious to the
.ACTS- The caption of the search warrant states that it is in connection with EKiolation of R+ 632@" otherwise /nown as the <angerous <rugs +cts of 14C2.F The teBt of the warrant however sa$s" EThere is pro;a;le cause to ;elieve that 1laes has in his possession and control and custod$ of marijuana dried stal/sLleavesLseedsLcigarettes and other regulatedLprohi;ited and eBempt narcotics preparations which is the su;ject of the offense stated a;ove.F 1laes argued that the warrant is a general warrant ;ecause it does not specificall$ point to certain provisions in the <angerous <rugs +ct. HE2D( 1laes is correct =IT there is onl$ once section in marijuana. So what are we tal/ing* So" even if it is not mentioned" it is understood that it points to marijuana. %EO%2E vs. DICHOSO 223 SCRA 1A4 .ACTS- + search warrant was issued for the seizure at <ichoso residence of sha;u" marijuana" paraphernalia" etc. <ichoso argued that his illegal possession of sha;u" marijuana and paraphernalia are covered ;$ different articles and sections of the <angerous <rugs +ct. )ence" the warrant is a general warrant. HE2D- Te/a munaD 0arijuana is regulated" sha;u is also prohi;ited. =ut the$ ;oth of them ;elong to one famil$ dangerous drugs. So mag/apatid man $anD 8areho na rin i$anD EThe <angerous <rugs +ct of 14C2 is a special law that deals specificall$ with dangerous drugs which are su;sumed into Mprohi;itedM and MregulatedM drugs and defines and penalizes categories of offenses which are closel$ related or which ;elong to the same class of species. +ccordingl$" one 217 search warrant ma$ thus ;e validl$ issued for the said violations of the <angerous <rugs +ct.F %RUDENTE vs. DACRIT 1G: S%R+ 64 214G47 .ACTS- The application for search warrant was captioned( E>or Kiolation of 8< -o. 1G66 2!llegal 8ossession of >irearms" 9T%.7F +nd what were ta/en were firearms and eBplosives. The validit$ of the search warrant was ?uestioned on the ground that there are two different violations firearms and eBplosives. HE2D- ESuch illegal possession of items destructive of life and propert$ are related offenses or ;elong to the same species" as to ;e su;sumed within the categor$ of illegal possession of firearms" etc. under 8.<. -o. 1G66.F So the word etcetera" covers them all. +nother interesting case is the 14GG case of Twentieth Century )ox vs. C! 2163 S%R+ 6@@7" reiterated in Columbia $ictures vs. )lores 2Nune 24" 144 7. !t refers to a violation of 8< 34 2otherwise /nown as the <ecree on the 8rotection of !ntellectual 8ropert$7 on antiHfilm pirac$ during the height of ;etamaB tapes. TDENTIETH CENTURC .OE vs. COURT O. A%%EA2S 164 SCRA 6:: .ACTS( + search warrant was issued for alleged violation of +ntiH8irac$ &aw. The things to ;e seized were video tapes" television sets" video cassette recorders" rewinders" tape cleaners" and almost ever$thing.
216
HE2D- The warrant is general. !t is void. Wh$* 1f course" if $ou seize the tapes" puwede pa $an. =ut wh$ will $ou seize television sets" video cassette recorders" rewinders" etc* +re the$ illegal o;jects* ETelevision sets" video cassette recorders" rewinders and tape cleaners are articles which can ;e found in a video tape store engaged in the legitimate ;usiness of lending or renting out ;etamaB tapes. !n short" these articles and appliances are generall$ connected with" or related to a legitimate ;usiness not necessaril$ involving pirac$ of intellectual propert$ or infringement of cop$right laws. )ence" including these articles without specification andLor particularit$ that the$ were reall$ instruments in violating an +ntiH8irac$ law ma/es the search warrant too general which could result in the confiscation of all items found in an$ video store.F %EO%2E vs. COURT O. A%%EA2S 216 SCRA 1F1 .ACTS( The ;od$ of the search warrant stated was that the items were EStolen or 9m;ezzled and proceeds or fruits of the offense" used or intended to ;e used as the means of committing the offense.F So" practicall$" the policeman copied the whole of Section . HE2D( The warrant is void. EThe warrant was a scatterHshot warrant that could refer Mto ro;;er$" theft" ?ualified theft or estafa.M 1n this score alone" the search warrant was totall$ null and void.F SEC. 6. -ssuance and form of search warrant. I$ the *u!"e is satis$ie! $ the e9istence $ $acts u& n which the a&&licati n is (ase! r that there is &r (a(le cause t (elie0e that the) e9ist' he shall issue the warrant' which #ust (e su(stantiall) in the $ r# &rescri(e! () these Rules. +:a, SEC. A. Ri ht to brea4 door or window to effect search. The $$icer' i$ re$use! a!#ittance t the &lace $ !irecte! search a$ter "i0in" n tice $ his &ur& se an! auth rit)' #a) (rea/ &en an) uter r inner ! r r win! w $ a h use r an) &art $ a h use r an)thin" therein t e9ecute the warrant t li(erate hi#sel$ r an) &ers n law$ull) ai!in" hi# when unlaw$ull) !etaine! therein. SEC. >. Search of house, room, or premises to be made in presence of two witnesses. N search $ a h use' r #' r an) ther &re#ises shall (e #a!e e9ce&t in the &resence $ the law$ul ccu&ant there $ r an) #e#(er $ his $a#il) r in the a(sence $ the latter' tw witnesses $ su$$icient a"e an! !iscreti n resi!in" in the sa#e l calit). +Aa, Remem;er there is a similar provision in the R8% 2violation of domicile7. 9ven if there is a search warrant" $ou cannot search the house without the presence of the owner or the occupant of the house. 1r if no;od$ is around" the searching officer must secure 2 witnesses" 2 mem;ers of the neigh;orhood. The$ cannot search on their own without an$ witnesses. '( What is the reason* +( !n order that the searching part$ will not just get an$thing which is not the su;ject of the warrant. This usuall$ happens. ,ou supposed to search for marijuana" ;ut $ou ;rought along the refrigerator. 1ne reason also is to prevent the planting of evidence. 1ne interesting case here is 6UINTERO vs. N<I 162 SCRA 46A .ACTS( -=! raiders went to search a house ;$ virtue of a search warrant. What the -=! did" ;ecause there were so man$ rooms" was the$ conducted the search simultaneousl$. 1ne -=! searching the room and the other in another room.
217
HE2D( That t$pe or procedure is wrong ;ecause how can the witnesses ;e present ever$time the search is made when one is in the other room and the others in another room. ESuch a procedure" wherein mem;ers of a raiding part$ can roam around the raided premises unaccompanied ;$ an$ witness" as the onl$ witnesses availa;le as prescri;ed ;$ law are made to witness a search conducted ;$ the other mem;ers of the raiding part$ in another part of the house" is held to ;e violative of ;oth the spirit and the letter of the law" which provides that no search of a house" room" or an$ other premises shall ;e made eBcept in the presence of at least one competent witness" resident of the neigh;orhood.F SEC. 5. Time of ma4in search. The warrant #ust !irect that it (e ser0e! in the !a) ti#e' unless the a$$i!a0it asserts that the &r &ert) is n the &ers n r in the &lace r!ere! t (e searche!' in which case a !irecti n #a) (e inserte! that it (e ser0e! at an) ti#e $ the !a) r ni"ht. +>, -ow" let.s go to a ver$ important provision Section 1:( SEC. 1F. 5alidity of search warrant. A search warrant shall (e 0ali! $ r ten +1F, !a)s $r # its !ate. Therea$ter' it shall (e 0 i!. +5a, + search warrant has a lifetime onl$ of ten 21:7 da$s. %ompare that with the lifetime of a warrant of arrest under Section 3 of Rule 11 . Inder Rule 11 " the 1:Hda$ period does not mean to sa$ that the warrant of arrest is onl$ good for 1: da$s. !t is onl$ a directive that $ou will enforce it within 1: da$s. !f $ou cannot arrest" di ;a$aan moD Oeep it and tr$ to arrest the accused in the future. =ut a search warrant" i;a talagang 1: da$s lang. Thereafter" it shall ;e void. <oes this mean to sa$ that $ou can use a search warrant ever$da$ for 1: da$s* -1. ,ou can use it once for 1: da$s. =ut it does not mean $ou can use it ever$da$ or for the neBt 1: da$s. 1ne interesting case on the issue of the 1:Hda$ period on search warrants is the 1446 case of 1USTAN= 2U1<ER' INC. vs. COURT O. A%%EA2S 2:A SCRA 43F 514466 .ACTS( + search warrant was secured on a certain date and enforced the same on the same da$. =ut the raiding team could not finish the search in one da$. So the$ postponed" bu4as naman ituloy." ISSUE- %an $ou still continue tomorrow* 1r must $ou finish ever$thing toda$* HE2D- Inder the Rules of %ourt" a search warrant has a lifetime of ten da$s. )ence" it could ;e served at an$ time within the said period" and if its o;ject or purpose cannot ;e accomplished in one da$" the same ma$ ;e continued the following da$ or da$s until completed. Thus" when the search under a warrant on one da$ was interrupted" it ma$ ;e continued under the same warrant the following da$" provided it is still within the tenHda$ period. ,aanD So that is the correct interpretation of the 1:Hda$ period. )indi naman /ailangan na $ou have to finish ever$thing on the same da$. ,ou ma$ still continue tomorrow ;ut ;e sure that tomorrow is still within the 1:Hda$ period. Suppose $ou cannot finish naman tomorrow* %ontinue on the neBt da$* 8u$diD tulo$D ;asta within the 1:Hda$ period. SEC. 11. Receipt for the property seized. The $$icer sei7in" the &r &ert) un!er the warrant #ust "i0e a !etaile! recei&t $ r the sa#e t the law$ul ccu&ant $ the &re#ises in wh se &resence the search an! sei7ure were #a!e' r in the a(sence $ such ccu&ant'
218
#ust' in the &resence $ at least tw witnesses $ su$$icient a"e an! !iscreti n resi!in" in the sa#e l calit)' lea0e a recei&t in the &lace in which he $ un! the sei7e! &r &ert). +1Fa,
SEC. 12. .elivery of property and inventory thereof to court' return and proceedin s thereon. +a, The $$icer #ust $ rthwith !eli0er the &r &ert) sei7e! t the *u!"e wh issue! the warrant' t "ether with a true in0ent r) there $ !ul) 0eri$ie! un!er ath. +(, Ten +1F, !a)s a$ter issuance $ the search warrant' the issuin" *u!"e shall ascertain i$ the return has (een #a!e' an! i$ n ne' shall su## n the &ers n t wh # the warrant was issue! an! re;uire hi# t e9&lain wh) n return was #a!e. I$ the return has (een #a!e' the *u!"e shall ascertain whether secti n 11 $ this Rule has (een c #&lie! with an! shall re;uire that the &r &ert) sei7e! (e !eli0ere! t hi#. The *u!"e shall see t it that su(secti n +a, here $ has (een c #&lie! with. +c, The return n the search warrant shall (e $ile! an! /e&t () the cust !ian $ the l " ( / n search warrants wh shall enter therein the !ate $ the return' the result' an! ther acti ns $ the *u!"e. A 0i lati n $ this secti n shall c nstitute c nte#&t $ c urt. +11a, '( +fter the search warrant has ;een implemented" what happens neBt* +( Inder Section 11" the officer must give a receipt to the owner or person from whom he too/ it or to the witness. +nd under Section 12 5a6" the officer must forthwith deliver the properties seized to the judge who issued the warrant together with a true inventor$ thereof dul$ verified under oath. So" receipt and then deliver. -ow" there are two new paragraphs" inserted in Section 12Pparagraphs 5;6 and 5c6 that there is a deadline for the officer to su;mit this report and to ma/e a return of the warrant. There is a deadline for him to do that. +nd the last portion of Section 12 sa$s( GA 0i lati n $ this secti n shall c nstitute c nte#&t $ c urt.H ! do not /now the reason ;ehind this amendment. ! presume it was inserted ;$ the S% ma$;e ;ecause in other places after the search warrant has ;een implemented" the court never /new what happened to the warrant" all the things were appropriated ;$ the officer" the$ were not turned over to the court. 0a$;e ;ecause of such eBperience" the S% decided to give a deadline for the turnover of all the properties seized and for the report. That.s onl$ m$ conjecture" Qnoh* &et.s go to some interesting cases regarding these personal properties su;ject of a search warrant. DASHIN=TON DISTI22ERS INC. vs. COURT O. A%%EA2S 26F SCRA >21 @1556B .ACTS( This involves a controvers$ ;etween Washington <istillers and &a TondeRa <istillers. 1;viousl$" their products are spirits and wine. +ccording to &a TondeRa <istillers" the ;ottles that Washington <istillers uses for their products are actuall$ &a TondeRa ;ottles. The$ ;u$ empt$ ;ottles" lilinisin nila" and the$ use them to serve their products. -agre/lamo ang &a TondeRa ;ecause those are their ;ottles" of course. 1ne of the issues here is whether $ou can still claim the ;ottles" ;ina$aran na $an eh. When the ;u$er ;ought the product" he alread$ paid for the ;ottle" so wh$ are $ou complaining* So that was the issue Qnoh* So &a TondeRa decided to appl$ for a search warrant to raid the premises of Washington <istillers to recover all these ;ottles. +nd there was reall$ a raid and so man$ ;ottles where ta/en from the premises of Washington <istillers. +ll those ;ottles were turned over to &a TondeRa. -ow" Washington <istillers ?uestioned the act of turning over the ;ottles to &a TondeRa. 1f course" the issue is ownership. +dmittedl$" these are $our ;ottles ;ut when the customers ;ought
219
those ;ottles and the contents $ou can no longer claim ownership over those ;ottles. 0ore or less that is the issue. So the$ were ?uarreling over the issue of ownership. -ow" Washington <istillers secured the services of 9stelito 0endoza on this issue. 0edoza ?uestioned the action of &a TondeRa in tr$ing to get the ;ottles. HE2D( 9stelito 0endoza was sustained in the S%. Wh$* =ecause if we are ?uarreling a;out the issue of ownership of the ;ottles" then there should ;e another case for replevin. 1r" the ;ottles are in the possession of the government" the &a TondeRa should file action for interpleader to determine who reall$ owns the ;ottles. =ut $ou cannot use a mere search warrant to resolve the issue of ownership. + search warrant is onl$ to get the propert$" ;ut it does not have the same effect as a writ of replevin. E+ search warrant proceeding is not a criminal action" much less a civil action. !t is a special criminal process" the order of issuance of which cannot and does not adjudicate the permanent status or character of the seized propert$. !t cannot therefore ;e resorted to" as was done here ;$ &a TondeRa <istillers" as a means of ac?uiring propert$ or of settling a dispute over the same. The proper remed$ is for private respondent or for the #overnment itself" assuming the role of a sta/eholder" to ;ring the appropriate action.F So that is a ver$ nice case" Qnoh* There is also another interesting issue in the case of Washington <istillers which was also raised ;$ 0endoza( DASHIN=TON DISTI22ERS INC. vs. CA 6supra1 .ACTS- +ccording to 0endoza" the application for search warrant is void or it should have ;een rejected ;ecause when the peace officer applied for the search warrant" there was no certification on nonHforum shopping. Oa$a sa;i ni 0endoza" E)ow do we /now* ,ou might have also applied for search warrant in another court. So" $ou must certif$ that $ou have not filed an$ other application for search warrant ;efore an$ other court.F That is a ver$ uni?ue argument. Sa;i ng other part$" E-o" hindi $an applica;le. )indi man /aso ito. !.m not filing a complaint or a petition where ! will include a certification on nonHforum shopping. This is just an application for a search warrant.F ISSUE- <oes the rule on nonHforum shopping certification also appl$ to search warrant* HE2D- ,9S" ;ecause does the law re?uires parties to certif$ under oath that the$ have not Etheretofore commenced an$ other action or proceeding involving the same issues in the Supreme %ourt" the %ourt of +ppeals" or an$ other tri;unal or agenc$F and that to the ;est of their /nowledge Eno such action or proceeding is pendingF in said courts or agencies. <i ;a that.s the language of forum shopping* E!ndeed" the polic$ against multiple court proceedings clearl$ applies to applications for search warrants. !f an application for search warrant can ;e filed even where there are other applications pending or denied in other courts" the situation would ;ecome intolera;le.F +nd what is the certification Qthat ! have not filed an$ other action or proceedin 7. ,111-D Q8R1%99<!-#.D +n application for a search warrant is a court proceeding which is covered ;$ the rule on forum shopping. So that was the ruling of the S% in this case. That.s wh$ $ou will see how anal$tical and ;rilliant 9stelito 0endoza is. 0a/ita ni$a ang mga ito. !n other words" he can reall$ detect these points which normall$ other law$ers will not ;e a;le to detect. 0agaling man talaga $an si$a ;a. -asira lang $an si$a sa impeachment trial. )e.s unpopularSpero he.s reall$ ver$ good. %ompared to the prosecution panel" na outclass talaga $un. Walang la;an $un. When ! read it" gra;eh talaga itong argument ni$a /ung saan ni$a pinulot ito. +nd he has ;een sustained in the S%. +lright. <id ! tell $ou a;out some;od$ from <avao who wanted to get the services of 0endoza* Wala" a$aw tanggapin. !f not for the recommendation of one of his closest friends in <avao. Sa;i ni$a" we do not accept for the moment ;ecause of the impeachment trial" we.re all ;us$. )e.s ;us$. -7m payin 8" )ow much* Two million9 Three #illion9 -7ll pay na8" -o" wala" a$aw tumanggap ni 0endoza. That.s ver$ small to him. +lright.
220
&et.s go now to the most controversial provision Section 1 Seizure.
The issue on Warrantless Search and
SEC. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. A &ers n law$ull) arreste! #a) (e searche! $ r !an"er us wea& ns r an)thin" which #a) ha0e (een use! r c nstitute &r $ in the c ##issi n $ an $$ense with ut a search warrant. +12a, '( When ma$ a search and seizure ;e effected without a search warrant* +( Section 1 H when it is merel$ incidental to a lawful arrest. + person lawfull$ arrested ma$ ;e searched for dangerous weapons or an$thing which ma$ ;e used or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant. This is ;ecause it.s a;surd" Qnoh* if !.m arresting a criminal ;$ virtue of a warrant" or the arrest is valid with no warrant 2;ecause that would ;e valid arrest without a warrant7 he might ;e holding a gun or a /nife. +nd if $ou do not search him" he might sta; the arresting officer. +nd it would ;e a;surd to sa$" o4, you can arrest me because of your warrant of arrest, but you cannot search me because you have no search warrant." So $ou as/ the policeman to go ;ac/ to court to get the search warrant. There.s something wrong there. ,ung search" dala na $unD When the arrest is valid or lawful" automaticall$ the search ;ecomes also lawful. That is wh$ in most cases involving search and seizures" the target of the person against whom something is ta/en is the validit$ of the arrest. =ecause once he can prove that the arrest is not valid" then automaticall$ the accompan$ing search is not also valid. =ecause" no valid arrest means no valid search and seizure. That is the pattern. There are so man$ cases here. !.m just choosing the interesting ones. UC IHEC TEN= vs. JI22AREA2 42 %HI2 >>6 .ACTS( This is a ver$ old case" alread$ as/ed in the ;ar. There was a search warrant issued ;$ the court to search a ;uilding somewhere in chinatown in =inondo" 0anila on the ground that there was opium or other drugs in that house. So the raiding part$ went to the house and announced to the owner that the$ have a search warrant. So the owner had no choice ;ut to allow the search. The$ searched the premises" the$ did not find an$ opium. WalaD =ut" instead" what the$ found were firearms unlicensed firearms. +nd ;ecause the$ discovered the presence of these firearms" the$ arrested the accused for illegal possession of firearms and seized all his firearms. There were two ?uestions which were as/ed in the ;arP ISSUE ?1( %an the peace officers seized the firearms ;$ virtue of the search warrant* HE2D- -1" =ecause a search warrant can onl$ issue for one offense. The offense was possession of opium or drugs. !t cannot ;e used to seize firearms. So the firearms cannot ;e seized ;$ virtue of the warrant. ISSUE ?2( Would $ou sa$ therefore that the seizure of these firearms is illegal* HE2D- -1. !t is valid ;ecause in the course of their search for opium" the$ discovered another crime illegal possession of firearms. +nd since the$ discovered the commission of another crime" the$ have the authorit$ T)9- +-< T)9R9 to arrest the owner ;ecause the crime is ;eing committed in their presence. So there is a valid warrantless arrest. +nd since there is a valid warrantless arrest" automaticall$ there is also a valid warrantless seizure. So" dun nahuli. What gives the peace officers the authorit$ is not the search warrant" ;ut the fact that it ;ecomes merel$ incidental to the arrest of the accused. &et.s go now to other cases. We are concentrating on the ?uestion of whether there is a valid seizure. Whether $ou can sa$ that the seizure is incidental to an arrest.
221
%EO%2E vs. CENDAKA Oct (er 1A' 155F
.ACTS( Some;od$ was /illed and the accused was arrested the following da$. )e was arrested on the ;asis of information o;tained ;$ police officers from unnamed sources. 1f course" when the$ arrested him inside his house na/ita nila $ung ;aril talaga doon. There was reall$ a gun which the$ ;elieved to ;e the ver$ gun used to /ill the victim. So the$ seized it. ISSUE( Was there a valid seizure* Walang warrant" eh. We go ;ac/" we have to determine whether there was also a valid arrest. Remem;er wala din silang warrant eh" when the$ arrested him. ,ou go ;ac/ to Rule 11 . !s there a valid warrantless arrest* HE2D( -o valid arrest. E+ccusedHappellant was arrested one da$ after the /illing of the victim and onl$ on the ;asis of information o;tained ;$ the police officers from unnamed sources. These a;ovementioned circumstances clearl$ ;elie a lawful warrantless arrest.F !t is not sanctioned ;$ Rule 11 . So /apag ;agsa/ ang arrest" ;agsa/ din automaticall$ ang seizure. E%onsidering that the arrest of accusedHappellant herein was unlawful" an$ search conducted on his person or place of arrest which is an incident thereof" was also unlawful. 8erforce" an$ evidence recovered during the unlawful search" ;eing made without a warrant" ;ecomes inadmissi;le in evidence against accusedHappellant and the shotgun which was allegedl$ the fatal weapon cannot ;e presented against him.F %EO%2E vs. CATAN 2F: SCRA 23: .ACTS( Rogelio %atan was entrapped ;$ two -+R%10 poseurH;u$ers in a ;u$H;ust operation right inside %atan. s house. The -+R%10 agents pretended to ;e addicts. 8ag;iga$" )I&!D +fter the arrest" the -+R%10 agents searched the premises and recovered more marijuana. %atan asserted that the search of his premises was illegal. !f $ou loo/ at the law" what can $ou search* The search is valid" di ;a* )e ma$ ;e search for dangerous weapons or an$thing which ma$ constitute proof. What was search was the premises. <un na/ita $ung maraming marijuana" eh. What was ta/en from him" maliit lang. <un si$a tinamaan ng illegal possession" ;ecause of the ?uantit$. So %atan was ?uestioning the search ;ecause $ou did not search m$ ;od$D ,ou searched m$ premises. HE2D( K+&!<D When $ou sa$ search of the person" it !-%&I<9S the immediate premises ;ecause for all $ou /now" walang ;aril" pero $ung ;aril pala nasa drawer ni$a at gagamitin sa i$o. So it includes the surrounding premises. That is covered ;$ the incidental search. %atan is wrong. E+ppellant was arrested in fla rante delicto in the act of selling and delivering marijuana to the poseurH;u$ers. )is case therefore falls under the categor$ of a valid warrantless arrest. The su;se?uent search of his house which immediatel$ followed $ielding other incriminating evidence was a search contemporaneously made and as an incident to a valid warrantless arrest in the immediate vicinity where the arrest was made. That is a recognized eBception to the general rule that an$ search and seizure must ;e supported ;$ a valid warrant.F That is the general rule. When $ou sa$ incidental search" it does not onl$ refer to /ap/apan mo $ung tao. 8ati immediate vicinit$ is included ;ecause remem;er" he ma$ have dangerous weapons in his ;od$ which he can use against $ou. =ut the dangerous weapon ma$ not ;e in his ;od$ ;ut within the immediate premises. That is what the S% said. The same rule or pattern emerged in the case of( %EO%2E vs. 2I DAC CHUN= 214 SCRA 431 @1552B
222
.ACTS( Search without warrant of the appellant.s dwelling. +ppellant.s dwelling is just a singleH room unit" which is around 4 s?uare meters. 0aliit lang $ung /warto ng accused. The$ searched the room and found out evidence. HE2D( EThe search without a warrant of appellant.s dwelling" a single room unit with a total area of 4 s?. m. was a valid as an incident of a lawful warrantless arrest. The search was conducted in a confined place within appellant.s immediate control" an area where he might gain possession of a weapon.F %EO%2E vs. =ERENTE 215 SCRA A:6 .ACTS( + witness testified that at C o.cloc/ in the morning" she saw three persons started drin/ing li?uor and smo/ing marijuana and overheard them /illing %larito =lace. -arinig lang ni$a. -ine hours after" or at 3 8.0." the police received a report of a mauling incident. So a police investigator went to the hospital where the victim was ;rought and was told that the victim died on arrival. 8ata$ naD 8olice investigator and his companions proceeded to the scene of the mauling and there the$ were informed ;$ the witness that she saw the /illing and pointed to #a;riel #erente" as one of the three men who /illed =lace. The policemen went to the house of #erente who was then sleeping" as/ed the latter to come out" and when he did" he was placed under arrest. )e was fris/ed" the police finding in his poc/et a coin purse containing dried leaves wrapped in a foil. The dried leaves turned out to ;e marijuana after la;orator$ eBamination. So he was arrested for the /illing" ang na/uha sa /an$a is a coin purse containing marijuana. So dalawa na /aso ni$a. ISSUE ?1( Was the warrantless arrest of #erente lawful* HE2D( ,9SD The e$e witness 9dna 9dwina Re$es reported the happening to the policemen and pinHpointed her neigh;or #erente as one of the /illers. Since the policemen have personal /nowledge 2,I-D7 of the violent death of =lace" and of facts indicating that #erente and two others are guilt$. We.re going ;ac/ to Rule 11 what do $ou mean ;$ personal /nowledge or pro;a;le causeSthe$ could lawfull$ arrest #erente without a warrant. !f the$ had postponed his arrest until the$ could o;tain a warrant" he would have fled li/e his companions na na/asi;at na. ISSUE ?2( 0a$ the marijuana ;e validl$ used as evidence in a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs* Was the marijuana validl$ seized* HE2D- ,9S. The search conducted on #erente.s person was li/ewise lawful ;ecause it was made as an incident to a valid arrest. !t was in accordance with Section 12" Rule 126" citing the case of !dams vs. 0illiams" an +merican case( E!t was ruled that the individual ;eing arrested ma$ ;e fris/ed for concealed weapons" that ma$ ;e used against the arresting officer" and all unlawful articles found in his person or within his immediate control ma$ ;e seized.F %EO%2E vs. 6UIZON 2:6 SCRA 32: 514466 NOTE- The guideline in order not to ;e lost is placed here nicel$. The guideline given ;$ the S% is thisPit is wise to remem;er this" ;ecause as we said" ang premise natin onl$ the arrest eh. HE2D( E!t is ;e$ond cavil that a lawful arrest must precede the search of a person and his ;elongings. Where a search first underta/en" then an arrest effected ;ased on evidence produced ;$ the search" ;oth such search and arrest would ;e unlawful" for ;eing contrar$ to law.F ,ou get that* Inahin muna ang arrestPlawfulPand then search. !f $ou will search" and in the process of searching $ou discover something and $ou will arrest himS a;a" hindi puwede ;ecause how can $ou sa$ that the search was incidental to a lawful arrest eh nauna $ung search /a$sa arrest* So" unlawful pareho. The arrest must
223
precede the search" not the search preceding the arrest. <o not search him in the hope that $ou will discover something unlawful. INSTANCES O. JA2ID DARRANT2ESS SEARCH '( Suppose $ou will ;e as/ed this ?uestion( What are the instances under the law when there could ;e a valid seizure without a search warrant* What are the instances when there could ;e a valid warrantless search and seizure* +( The following are the instances( 1. 2. . 3. @. 6. C. When the search is merel$ incidental to a valid arrest 2Section 1 7A Stop +nd >ris/ RuleA Search of moving vehiclesA 9vidence in plain viewA %ustoms searchesA %onsented searchA 9Bigent searches or searches during emergenc$ circumstances STO% AND .RISI RU2E The Stop and >ris/ Rule was ta/en ;$ the S% from a leading +merican case" T9RR, KS. ST+T9 1> 1)!1 2 42 IS 1" 2: & 9d 2d GG4" GG S %t 1G6G7 cited in the case of 8918&9 KS. 0+&0ST9<T 214G S%R+ 3:17 and 81S+<+S KS. %+ 21G: S%R+ 2G 7 !n the 144@ or 1446 ;ar" the ver$ first ?uestion in Remedial &aw was( &xplain what is meant by the Terry Search. +$" maraming tinamaan dun. +no ;a ito* )ow do $ou eBplain the process of Stop and >ris/ which is one of the instances where the warrantless search ma$ ;e allowed* !f $ou do not /now $our constitutional law" pata$ /aD -ow" ano ;a itong Terr$ Search* +lam natin $ung Stop and >ris/. There are man$ factors there to consider. >irst" that is normall$ applied to peace officers. When the$ see someone acting suspiciousl$ at the wrong time and at the wrong place. >or eBample" $ou are patrolling in the middle of the night then $ou see some;od$ in the dar/. That will invite $our attention. +nd then" the Terr$ Search sa$s $ou must as/ ?uestions first 0hat is your name9 0hy are you here in the middle of the ni ht9 )indi /a puwedeng magH/ap/ap /aagad. 0agtanong /a muna. >ind out whether $ou are satisfied with his answers. -ow" if somehow $ou dou;t his answerPli/e if he is wearing a ;ig jac/et and tr$ing to hide somethingPa$an naD ,ou can sa$ E! will fris/ $ouF. The guideline here is the appearance of the person" the time" the occasion of the search. +nd $ou have to limit first $our o;servation on the outer garments. =ut $ou have to consider also" according to the S%" the eBperience of the peace officer. =ecause peace officer" somehow" the$ have siBth sense eh when it comes to shad$ characters. These are the factors which should ;e ta/en into consideration" then stop and fris/. Oap/apan mo. -ow suppose in doing that" firearm is ta/en" or an$thing" pwede. )e cannot sa$ inadmissi;le. Inder the second eBception ito 2Stop and >ris/7. -ow we.ll illustrate some cases to demonstrate how this has ;een applied. &et us start with a case which originated in <avao. %OSADAS vs. COURT O. A%%EA2S 1>F SCRA 2>3 NOTE( The search was conducted in 0agallanes Street" sa ma$ R0%. .ACTS( +t a;out 1: o.cloc/ in the morning" two policemen were conducting a surveillance. 1;viousl$" the$ were eBpecting something to happen" or the$ were as/ed to loo/ for some;od$. The$ spotted 8osadas carr$ing a ;uri ;ag. The$ notice him to ;e acting suspiciousl$. 2What do $ou mean
224
;$ acting suspiciousl$* &et us leave that to the judgment of the peace officer.7 =oth policemen approached 8osadas and identified themselves. =ut when the$ introduced themselves" 8osadas attempted to flee. There is somethin wron here. +a pa4ilala tayon pulis, tuma4bo siya. 0hy is he runnin 9" So" the$ caught him. + chec/ of the ;uri ;ag $ielded one cali;er . G Smith T Wesson revolver" 2 teargas grenades and live ammunitions of . 2 cali;er gun. 8osadas was not a;le to show the necessar$ license or authorit$ to possess firearms and ammunitions. So he was prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions. ISSUE( Was there a valid search and seizure to ma/e a confiscated items admissi;le evidence* HE2D( ,9S. EThere was a valid search and seizure. +t the time the peace officers identified themselves and apprehended 8osadas as he attempted to flee" the$ did not /now what he had committed" or was actuall$ committing illegal possession of firearms. The$ did not /now thatD The$ just went there and introduced themselves. The$ just suspected that he was hiding something in the ;uri ;ag. The$ did not /now what its contents were. The said circumstances did not justif$ the arrest without the warrant.F /laro $an ;ecause is there a crime if $ou wal/ around with a ;uri ;ag* ! don.t thin/ there is a crime" Qnoh*7 E)1W9K9RP5$aaanD6Pthe search" in the case at ;ar" is reasona;le considering that it was effected on the ;asis of pro;a;le cause.F 5So" ;ali/ na naman ta$o sa pro;a;le cause.6 The pro;a;le cause is that when 8osadas acted suspiciousl$ and attempted to flee with the ;uri ;ag" there was a pro;a;le cause that he was concealing something illegal in the ;ag. !t was the right and dut$ of the police officers to inspect the same" 0hy are you runnin 9 0e7re :ust introducin ourselves, ba7t tuma4bo 4a9" +$an. !t will arouse suspicion. E!t is too much indeed to re?uire the police officers to search the ;ag in the possession of 8osadas onl$ after the$ shall have o;tained a search warrant for the purpose. Such an eBercise ma$ prove to ;e useless" futile and much too late.F So $ou can see the pattern. +lam ni$o ang mga /asong ganitoPwarrantless searches" warrantless arrests under Rule 11 Pang pagHasa mo lang dito read as man$ cases as possi;le. =ecause if $ou will ;e ?uestioned ;$ the eBaminer" definitel$ it will ;e patterned after one case. !f $ou are familiar with the cases" madaling ma/ilala. !t would ;e eas$. +s what happened last $ear" there was a ?uestion in %onstitutional &aw on stop and fris/. Sa;i nila" EI$D ;si 3udee na sad8< -a;asa /o man ang /asong ito.F +nd it was reall$ the same case. The same facts" eh. Sa sementer$o" inaresto" mapula ang mata" parang hu;og magla/adSmeaning" he was suspected to ;e an addict. The sameD We.ll touch the case later. ! thin/ that.s the case of 0analili vs %ourt of +ppeals. +lright. We.ll compare this case of $osadas with a similar case the case of %EO%2E vs. 1EN=OTE 21F SCRA 1A4 .ACTS( Rogelio 0engote was arrested ;$ policemen ;ecause he was acting suspiciousl$. +$an na naman" pareho sa $osadas eh. )e was loo/ing from side to side while holding his a;domen. When searched" he was found with a . G revolver with siB live ;ullets. The incident occurred ;efore noon time so tanghaliD at the corner of Nuan &una and -orth =a$ =oulevard" Tondo" 0anila. +lmost the same with $osadasPten o.cloc/ in the morning" ;efore noon. =ut how come there is a difference in the ruling* NOTE( Ta/e note ha" in the case of $osadas" tuma/;o. !n 0engote" hindi man tuma/;o. =asta linapitan si$a" na/ap/apan ng ;aril. 0engote was convicted of illegal possession of firearms. )e was convicted. 0engote contends that the weapon was not admissi;le evidence ;ecause it was illegall$ seized" and therefore" the fruit of a poisonous tree. ,un man talaga depensa mo" wala mang i;a. The prosecution insists that the revolver was validl$ received in evidence ;ecause its seizure was incidental to an arrest that was dou;tless lawful" even admittedl$ without warrant. ISSUE- !s the evidence inadmissi;le*
225
HE2D( ,9S. EThe evidence is inadmissi;le. When 0engote was arrested" he was not committing an$ offense.F The ?uestion is" What offense* EWhat offense could possi;l$ have ;een suggested ;$ a person Qloo/ing from side to side. and Qholding his a;domen. and in a place not eBactl$ forsa/en* These are certainl$ not sinister acts. +nd the setting of the arrest made them less so" if at all.F 9toD Oa$a nasa;i /o" in determining stop and fris/" $ou have to loo/ at the time" the place. E!t might have ;een different if 0engote had ;een apprehended at an ungodl$ hour and in a place where he had no reason to ;e" li/e a dar/ened alle$ at oUcloc/ in the morning. =ut he was arrested at 11( : in the morning and in a crowded street shortl$ after alighting from a passenger jeep with his companion. )e was not s/ul/ing in the shadows ;ut wal/ing in the clear light of da$. There was nothing clandestine a;out his ;eing on that street at that ;us$ hour in the ;laze of the noonda$ sun.F E!t would ;e a sad da$" indeed" if an$ person could ;e summaril$ arrested and searched just ;ecause he is holding his a;domen" even if it ;e possi;l$ ;ecause of a stomachHache" or if a peace officerHcould clamp handcuffs on an$ person with a shift$ loo/ on suspicion that he ma$ have committed a criminal act or is actuall$ committing or attempting it. This simpl$ cannot ;e done in a free societ$. This is not a police state where order is eBalted over li;ert$ or" worse" personal malice on the part of the arresting officer ma$ ;e justified in the name of securit$.F So even the S% gave a guideline. Oung alas tres ng umaga" madilimSahh" pu$diD %EO%2E vs. EJARISTO Dece#(er 11' 1552 .ACTS( There was some;od$ who fired a pistol. So" there were 2 policemen who started chasing him. +nd when the$ chased" the$ found 2 people in the corner and the$ started as/ing these 2 people. -ow" one of the 2 policemen saw that the gu$.s side is ;ulging. When the$ searched him" the$ found a gun. So he was arrested. ISSUE( Whether there was a valid warrantless search was valid. HE2D( When the police officers chased after some;od$ who fired a pistol and the$ came upon 9varisto" the visual o;servation that his side is ;ulging along with the earlier report of gunfire" as well as the peace officerUs professional instincts" are more than sufficient to pass the test of the Rules. %onse?uentl$" under the facts" the firearms ta/en from 9varisto can ;e said to have ;een seized incidental to a lawful and valid arrest. So" that is the doctrine of Stop and >ris/.
1A2ACAT vs. COURT O. A%%EA2S " <ecem;er 12" 144C vis=>=vis 1ANA2I2I vs. COURT O. A%%EA2S' 1cto;er 4" 144C HE2D- ERejecting his appeal" this %ourt held that the search was a/in to a stopHandHfris/. The police had sufficient reason to stop 0analili" who Mhad red e$es and was wo;;ling li/e a drun/ . . . 5in6 a popular hangout of drug addicts"M in order to investigate if he was actuall$ MhighM on drugs. The situation veril$ called for a stopHandHfris/.F 1A2ACAT vs. COURT O. A%%EA2S #.R. -o. 12 @4@A <ecem;er 12" 144C ISSUE( <istinguish stop and fris/ from search incidental to a lawful arrest. HE2D( EWe note that the trial court confused the concepts of a MstopHandHfris/M and of a search incidental to a lawful arrest. These two t$pes of warrantless searches differ in terms of the re?uisite ?uantum of proof ;efore the$ ma$ ;e validl$ effected and in their allowa;le scope. E!n a search incidental to a lawful arrest" as the precedent arrest determines the validit$ of the incidental search" the legalit$ of the arrest is ?uestioned in a large majorit$ of these cases" e.g."
226
whether an arrest was merel$ used as a preteBt for conducting a search. !n this instance" the law re?uires that there first ;e a lawful arrest ;efore a search can ;e made P the process cannot ;e reversed. +t ;ottom" assuming a valid arrest" the arresting officer ma$ search the person of the arrestee and the area within which the latter ma$ reach for a weapon or for evidence to destro$" and seize an$ mone$ or propert$ found which was used in the commission of the crime" or the fruit of the crime" or that which ma$ ;e used as evidence" or which might furnish the arrestee with the means of escaping or committing violence. EWhile pro;a;le cause is not re?uired to conduct a Mstop and fris/"M it nevertheless holds that mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a Mstop and fris/.M + genuine reason must eBist" in light of the police officerUs eBperience and surrounding conditions" to warrant the ;elief that the person detained has weapons concealed a;out him. >inall$" a MstopHandHfris/M serves a twoHfold interest( 217 the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection" which underlies the recognition that a police officer ma$" under appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner" approach a person for purposes of investigating possi;le criminal ;ehavior even without pro;a;le causeA and 227 the more pressing interest of safet$ and selfHpreservation which permit the police officer to ta/e steps to assure himself that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a deadl$ weapon that could uneBpectedl$ and fatall$ ;e used against the police officer.F SEARCH O. 1OJIN= JEHIC2ES +nother instance of a valid warrantless search is the search of moving vehicles. =ecause if the vehicle is moving or mo;ile" and it contains illegalLprohi;ited o;jects that is ;eing transported and nandi$an na ang vehicle" it would ;e a;surd if $ou appl$ first for a search warrant ;ecause ma/a/ala$o na $ung vehicle. -ow" do $ou remem;er the most controversial case of K+&01-T9 vs. <9 K!&&+* This is where the S% sustained the constitutionalit$ of chec/points. =ut the guidelines here is that the chec/points has authorit$ to stop the car and see an$thing without opening an$ compartments of it. So" the inspection is limited to a visual or ocular inspection onl$. =ut if the chec/points received a tip that there is a passenger" then it is allowed. %EO%2E vs. 1A21STEDT 15> SCRA 4F1 .ACTS( This happened in the 0ountain 8rovince involving a %aucasian. The -+R%10 agents received a tip that a ;us will pass from 0t. 8rovince and that there is a %aucasian passenger ;ringing with him prohi;ited drugs. So" the$ stopped the ;us and found a %aucasian inside. So the$ approached him and as/ed him( EWhat is $our name* %an we see $our passport*F The %aucasian refused. Then during the inspection" the -+R%10 agents opened his ;ag and found hashish. The same was found in the tedd$ ;ear. So" he was charged with illegal possession of prohi;ited drugs. 0almstedt ?uestioned the validit$ of the search. HE2D( The warrantless search was valid. EThe receipt of information ;$ -+R%10 that a %aucasian coming from Sagada had prohi;ited drugs in his possession" plus the suspicious failure of 0almstedt to produce his passport" ta/en together as a whole" led the -+R%10 officers to reasona;l$ ;elieve that he was tr$ing to hide something illegal from the authorities. >rom these circumstances arose a pro;a;le cause which justified the warrantless search that was made on the personal effects of 0almstedt. !n other words" the acts of the -+R%10 officers in re?uiring him to open his pouch ;ag and in opening one of the wrapped o;jects found inside said ;ag 2which was discovered to contain hashish7 as well as the two 227 travelling ;ags containing two 227 tedd$ ;ears with hashish stuffed inside them" were prompted ;$ 0almstedt.s own attempt to hide his identit$ ;$ refusing to present his passport" and ;$ the information received ;$ the -+R%10 that a %aucasian coming from Sagada had prohi;ited drugs in his possession. To deprive the -+R%10 agents of the a;ilit$ and facilit$ to act accordingl$" including" to search even without warrant" in the light of such circumstances" would ;e to sanction impotence and ineffectiveness in law enforcement" to the detriment of societ$.F The case of #!(#ST&.T was repeated in the case of
227
%EO%2E vs. <A=ISTA 214 SCRA :3
.ACTS( This also happened in 0t. 8rovince. The -+R%10 received a tip that a woman riding in a ;us from =aguio %it$ has marijuana. She was descri;ed as having curl$ hair and short. So" when the ;us passed through the chec/point" the$ saw the woman which fit the description. The agent searched her and in her ;ag was found marijuana. The ;ag and its contents were seized. ISSUE( Was there a valid search* HE2D( The search was valid in accordance with the case of #almstedt. EWith regard to the search of moving vehicles" this had ;een justified on the ground that the mo;ilit$ of motor vehicles ma/es it possi;le for the vehicle to ;e searched to move out of the localit$ or jurisdiction in which the warrant must ;e sought.F EThis in no wa$" however" gives the police officers unlimited discretion to conduct warrantless searches of automo;iles in the a;sence of pro;a;le cause. When a vehicle is stopped and su;jected to an eBtensive search" such a warrantless search has ;een held to ;e valid onl$ as long as the officers conducting the search have reasona;le or pro;a;le cause to ;elieve ;efore the search that the$ will find the instrumentalit$ or evidence pertaining to a crime" in the vehicle to ;e searched.F EThe -+R%10 officers in the case at ;ar had pro;a;le cause to stop and search all vehicles coming from the north at +cop" Tu;la$" =enguet in view of the confidential information the$ received from their regular informant that a woman having the same appearance as that of accusedHappellant would ;e ;ringing marijuana from up north. The$ li/ewise have pro;a;le cause to search accusedH appellantUs ;elongings since she fits the description given ;$ the -+R%10 informant.F &et.s tr$ to compare the case of 2a ista with the earlier case of !#-+?.-+. !t has a similar set of facts ;ut this time" it involves marine vessel. %EO%2E vs. A1INUDIN 163 SCRA 4F2 .ACTS( The -+R%10 agenst in !loilo %it$ received a report that a vessel coming from 0indanao has 0r. +minudin carr$ing with him marijuana. So" the -+R%10 agents waited at the port for the vessel to arrive. So the$ were loo/ing for the passenger and then the$ saw a man which fit the description of the suspect. The$ fris/ed him and when the maleta was opened" it contained prohi;ited drugs. Su;se?uentl$" the man was arrested. HE2D( There was no valid search ;ecause the -+R%10 has enough time to secure a search warrant. There are still 2 da$s ;efore the vessel will arrive. The$ have all the time. !n the #almstedt and 2a ista" it was in the ;us and ma$ pass ;$ within : minutes or 1 hour. +nother difference is this( if $ou are the suspect riding in a ;us and $ou /new that there is a chec/point ahead" $ou can alwa$s as/ the ;us to stop and then ;a;a /a. =ut in the case of ship" $ou cannot do thatD 8agna/aHhearing /a na ma$ chec/point sa pier" will $ou as/ the vessel to stop and then talon /a dagat* That is a;surd QnoD So when it comes to ;uses or other ;$Hland vehicles" mas madaling ma/ataas ang suspect. Inli/e sa marine vessel. +nother case where the S% laid down the rule reiterating the case of 5almonte is the 144 case of( %EO%2E vs. EEA2A 221 SCRA 454 HE2D( =ut visual situation onl$ and if there is an information to eBcite that something is wrong" then $ou can effect a search without warrant. This is the eBception( if the vehicle is stopped and eBtensivel$ searched" it is ;ecause of some pro;a;le cause which justifies a reasona;le ;elief that
228
either a motorist of the content of the vehicle is an instrument in the commission of an offense. The presumption stands that the$ are regularl$ performing their duties. EJIDENCE IN %2AIN JIED +nother instance of a warrantless search is the search of evidence in plain view /now as the plain view doctrine when $ou stum;le ;$ accident across an o;ject which is prohi;ited or illegal. !t would ;e a;surd that $ou still have to re?uire a search warrant" when it is actuall$ there in front of $ou. This doctrine complements the other. +nd one of the cases where the S% eBplained the plain view doctrine is the case of %EO%2E vs. 1USA 21A SCRA :5A @155:B .ACTS( The -+R%10 team conducted a ;u$H;ust operation at the appellant.s house who was alleged to ;e selling marijuana. +fter the transaction too/ placed" the team went inside the house and arrested the appellant ;ut una;le to find the mar/ed mone$. Thereafter" 2 agents went to the /itchen and noticed a cellophane colored white and stripe hanging at the corner of the /itchen. The$ as/ed the appellant a;out its contents" ;ut failing to get a response" the$ opened it and found dried marijuana leaves. +t the trial" the appellant ?uestioned the admissi;ilit$ of the plastic ;ag and the marijuana it contains ;ut the trial court ruled that the$ are admissi;le. HE2D( Search was not valid" o;jects seized inadmissi;le in evidence. The S% eBplained and clarified the meaning of plain view. &et us sa$ that the plastic ;ag is apparent and $ou cannot see what is inside" then $ou will go there to see it" that is not plain view. EThe warrantless search and seizure" as an incident to a suspectUs lawful arrest" ma$ eBtend ;e$ond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his immediate control. 1;jects in the Mplain viewM of an officer who has the right to ;e in the position to have that view are su;ject to seizure and ma$ ;e presented as evidence.F EThe Mplain viewM doctrine ma$ not" however" ;e used to launch un;ridled searches and indiscriminate seizures nor to eBtend a general eBplorator$ search made solel$ to find evidence of defendantUs guilt. The Mplain viewM doctrine is usuall$ applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused" ;ut nonetheless inadvertentl$ comes across an incriminating o;ject.F E!t has also ;een suggested that even if an o;ject is o;served in Mplain view"M the Mplain viewM doctrine will not justif$ the seizure of the o;ject where the incriminating nature of the o;ject is not apparent from the Mplain viewM of the o;ject. 3C Stated differentl$" it must ;e immediatel$ apparent to the police that the items that the$ o;serve ma$ ;e evidence of a crime" contra;and" or otherwise su;ject to seizure.F E!n the instant case" the appellant was arrested and his person searched in the living room. >ailing to retrieve the mar/ed mone$ which the$ hoped to find" the -+R%10 agents searched the whole house and found the plastic ;ag in the /itchen. The plastic ;ag was" therefore" not within their Mplain viewM when the$ arrested the appellant as to justif$ its seizure. The -+R%10 agents had to move from one portion of the house to another ;efore the$ sighted the plastic ;ag.F E0oreover" when the -+R%10 agents saw the plastic ;ag hanging in one corner of the /itchen" the$ had no clue as to its contents. The$ had to as/ the appellant what the ;ag contained. When the appellant refused to respond" the$ opened it and found the marijuana. 9ven assuming then" that the -+R%10 agents inadvertentl$ came across the plastic ;ag ;ecause it was within their Mplain view"M what ma$ ;e said to ;e the o;ject in their Mplain viewM was just the plastic ;ag and not the marijuana. The incriminating nature of the contents of the plastic ;ag was not immediatel$ apparent from the Mplain viewM of said o;ject. !t cannot ;e claimed that the plastic ;ag clearl$ ;etra$ed its contents" whether ;$ its distinctive configuration" its transparenc$" or otherwise" that its contents are o;vious to an o;server.F CUSTO1S SEARCHES
229
+nother instance of a valid warrantless search is a search conducted under the customs and tariff code. When a vessel arrives from a;road" the customs agents ;oard the vessel to loo/ for smuggled items. Then can conduct warrantless searches for the enforcement of customs laws. CONSENTED SEARCH +nother instance of a valid warrantless search is a consented search ;ecause here" there is a waiver. >or eBample( ! will go to $our house and ! will tell $ou that we heard that there are illegal firearms inside $our house and ! have no warrant. =ut $ou let me in" *4ay lan , si e paso4 4a and you search." That is consented search. 1ne of the interesting cases in consented search is the case of( %EO%2E vs. <UR=OS 144 SCRA 1 NOTE( <o not confuse this case with the one we discussed in Rule 11 . .ACTS( There was a suspected -8+" got arrested and there was an interrogation" EWho are $ou companions*F E0r. so and so.F So the$ went to this house and said that" ,oy8 +$! 4a man daw. 0e would li4e to search your house, pwede9" The wife did not o;ject. The$ found firearms. When the constitutionalit$ of the search was challenged" the contention was" it was a consented search. HE2D( !t was not a consented search. When a person remains silent" that is not consent. This is a constitutional right which cannot ;e lightl$ waived. There is no presumption that there is a waiver or that the consent was given ;$ the accused simpl$ ;ecause he failed to o;ject. ,ou appl$ the rule that courts indulge ever$ reasona;le presumption against waiver of constitutional rights. ,ou cannot presume ac?uiescence in the loss of fundamental constitutional right. 1ne last case on consented search also happened in <avao %it$. The case of JEROC vs. 2ACA=UE 21F SCRA 5A .ACTS( +tt$. 8aul Kero$ was formerl$ regional director of the SSS. )e has a house in S/$line. +t that time" the$ were at 0anila. The militar$ received a report that his house is ;eing used ;$ the re;elsA that is where the$ meet. So the$ called up Kero$ through long distance. 0r. Kero$ said" Si e, bahala na 4ayo diyan." The searching team started opening drawers and the$ found guns. So Kero$ was charged for illegal possession of firearms. Kero$ challenged the validit$ of the search. The defense was consented search. HE2D( The search was not valid although there was consent from Kero$. The permission was to loo/ for re;els and not for firearms. !f $ou are loo/ing for re;els" wh$ are $ou opening the drawers* There are no re;els inside the drawersD Where the permission to enter a residence was given to search for re;els" it is illegal to search the rooms therein for firearms without a search warrant. SEARCHES UNDER EEI=ENTLEETRAORDINARC CIRCU1STANCES The last eBception to the warrant eBception would ;e searches during eBigent or eBtraordinar$ circumstances provided pro;a;le cause eBists. Nust li/e what happened during the 14GC and 14G4 coup where the militar$ made some searches in suspected places. !n that case" there is no need to o;tain search warrants considering that during that time all the courts there in 0anila were closed ;ecause of the coup de etat. Such period is considered as eBtraordinar$ circumstances. +*T&@ This eBception is a catchHall categor$ that encompasses a num;er of diverse situations. What the$ have in common is some /ind of emergenc$ that ma/es o;taining a search warrant impractical" useless"
230
dangerous" or unnecessar$. +mong these situations are danger of ph$sical harm to the officer or destruction of evidence" danger to a third person" driving while intoBicated" and searches in hot pursuit. <el %armen" Rolando K." %riminal 8rocedure for &aw 9nforcement 8ersonnel" 14GC 9dition p. 1@: 2 )ootnote" 8eople vs. >ernandez" 2 G S%R+ 1C3" 1G27 +*T&@ Search ;ased on pro;a;le cause under eBtraordinar$ circumstances" were upheld in 8eople vs. 8osadas" 1GG S%R+ 2GG 5144:6A Kalmonte vs. Killa" 1CG S%R+ 211 514G46A 8eople vs. 0aspil" #.R. -o. G@1CC" +ugust 2:" 144:" citing Kalmonte vs. KillaA 8eople vs. 0almstedt" #.R. -o. 411:C" Nune 14" 1441A 8eople vs. Sucro" #.R. -o. 4 2 4" 0arch 1G" 1441A 8eople vs. 0ontilla" #.R. -o. 12 GC2" Nanuar$" :" 144G. SEC. 14. #otion to %uash a search warrant or to suppress evidence' where to file. M A # ti n t ;uash a search warrant an!L r t su&&ress e0i!ence (taine! there() #a) (e $ile! in an! acte! u& n nl) () the c urt where the acti n has (een institute!. I$ n cri#inal acti n has (een institute!' the # ti n #a) (e $ile! in an! res l0e! () the c urt that issue! search warrant. H we0er' i$ such c urt $aile! t res l0e the # ti n an! a cri#inal case is su(se;uentl) $ile! in an ther c urt' the # ti n shall (e res l0e! () the latter c urt. +n,
-ow" Section 13 is a new provision. !t was ta/en from the case of #alaloan and 2ans. 28eople v. =ans" #.R. -o. 1:313C7 '( The judge will issue a search warrant. Suppose the search warrant is improper" where will $ou ?uestion the admissi;ilit$ of the evidenceS in the court which issued the warrant* or in the court where the case is pending* +( !n the case of #alaloan" in either court. =ut in the case of 2ans" if there is alread$ a case" all should ;e resolved in the court where the case is pending" otherwise there will ;e interference among the courts. When do $ou ?uestion the validit$ of the search* !n illegal arrest" all defects surrounding the arrest should ;e raised ;efore the arraignment" otherwise the defects are deemed cured ;ecause there was a waiver. =ut in illegal search" such rule does not appl$. ,ou ma$ raise such issue even after arraignment. The waiver onl$ applies on the illegalit$ of arrest" and does not eBtend to searches. 28eople vs. +ruta7
231

Rule 126 Search

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Rule 126 Search

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Review on the 2000 Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure (2002 Edition) <draft copy; pls.

check for errors>

Rule 126 Search and Seizure

Rule 126 Search and Seizure

Rule 126 Search and Seizure

Rule 126 Search and Seizure

eneral warrants which are o;noBious to the

Rule 126 Search and Seizure

Rule 126 Search and Seizure

Rule 126 Search and Seizure

Rule 126 Search and Seizure

Rule 126 Search and Seizure

The issue on Warrantless Search and

Rule 126 Search and Seizure

Rule 126 Search and Seizure

Rule 126 Search and Seizure

Rule 126 Search and Seizure

Rule 126 Search and Seizure

Rule 126 Search and Seizure

Rule 126 Search and Seizure

Rule 126 Search and Seizure

Rule 126 Search and Seizure

Rule 126 Search and Seizure

Anda mungkin juga menyukai