CASE
Burgos v. Chief of Staff
Burgos is a well-journalist critical of the
government. The military seized his property.
Salonga v. Cruz Pano
Salonga was arrested because of his alleged
link in a subversive organization.
Webb v. De Leon
“The” Hubert Webb Rape-Homicide Case
People v. Huang Zhen Hua
People v. Tudtud & Bolong
RULING
Petitioners may use their illegally seized property as evidence in a suit to declare the same
inadmissible because it was from an illegal seizure. It is the property of the petitioner and he
may use it for one proceeding and have it declared inadmissible in another.
Petitioner’s delay because of first exhausting extrajudicial remedies is a defense against a claim
of laches.
Because “he mentioned some kind of violent struggle if reforms will not be instituted by
Marcos” and because his house was used as a “contact point,” the military arrested Salonga
while undergoing treatment for asthma. The Court ruled that this was not enough even for a
prima facie case. Petitioner has the right of free speech (speak freely of his politics) and due
process (only be imprisoned on evidence produced against him in court.
In search cases, two conclusions must be supported by substantial evidence: that the
items sought are in fact seizable by virtue of being connected with criminal activity, and
that the items will be found in the place to be searched. It is not also necessary that a
particular person be implicated.
In arrest cases there must be probable cause that a crime has been committed and that
the person to be arrested committed it, which of course can exist without any showing
that evidence of the crime will be found at premises under that person’s control.”
Evidence was ruled inadmissible because search preceded arrest. Warrantless search must
be incidental (and thus subsequent) to a lawful arrest.
Search of evidence in plain view. The elements are: (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid
warrantless arrest 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;
People v. Exala When one voluntarily submits to a search or consents to have it made of his person or
premises, he is precluded from later complaining thereof.
The marijuana was found when they stopped at a checkpoint in Cavite. SC held that he waived
his right against search and seizure when he failed to raise the issue in the lower court nor
protest during arrest using evidence he believed illegally obtained.
The right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure may, like every right, be waived
and such waiver may be made either expressly or impliedly
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan SC dismissed the petition to declare the Plunder Law as violative of the overbreadth doctrine
because it was allegedly “two-pronged” in that it brought forth substantive law and also
procedural elements of evidence. RATIO: The procedural suggestions of the Law are merely
suggestions found also in other laws. Even if it were indeed violative however, then it may be
scrapped and still the law remains operative and valid.
Posadas v. CA The “warrantless search after a lawful arrest” rule is not absolute. One of its exceptions include
the STOP and SEARCH checkpoints of the police.
Roan v. Gonzales Armed with a search warrant, Roan’s house was searched and seized. The thing seized
however were not that which were described in the search warrant. He likewise argues that
there is an invalid search warrant because the judge merely accepted the affidavits of the
witnesses and did not personally interrogate them in order to find existence of probable cause.
Court finds merit on Roan’s petition.
Stonehill v. Diokno The non-exclusionary rule (the Moncado ruling, which holds that other matters not found in
This case overturned the Moncado Doctrine. the warrant itself but it related to the subject matter may be taken) is contrary, not only to
Stonehill was an American national who was the letter, but, also, to spirit of the constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches
suspected as crime lord. Diokno was the and seizures. The Moncado ruling, that documents are still admissible in spite of the
Justice Secretary. unconstitutionality of the seizure, must be abandoned as it is the only practical means of
enforcing the constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures.
People v. Veloso Veloso, upon presentation of a search warrant on “John Doe,” replied “I’m Representative
Resistance to agents of authority. Veloso, not John Doe.”
SC held that the search and seizure as against him were still valid. However, John Doe search
warrants should be the exception and not the rule. The police should particularly describe the
place to be searched and the person or things to be seized, wherever and whenever it is
feasible. The police however should not be hindered in the performance of their duties,
which are difficult enough of performance under the best of conditions, by superficial
adherence to technicality or far-fetched judicial interference.
Nolasco v. Pano The Search Warrant authorizes the seizure of personal properties vaguely described and not
Rebellion particularized. It is an all-embracing description which includes everything conceivable
The “probable cause” required to justify the regarding the Communist party of the Philippines and the National Democratic Front.
issuance of a search warrant comprehends  It does not specify what the subversive books and instructions are; what the manuals
such facts and circumstances as will induce a not otherwise available to the public contain to make them subversive or to enable
cautious man to rely upon them and act in them to be used for the crime of rebellion.
pursuance thereof.  There is absent a definite guideline to the searching team as to what items might be
lawfully seized thus giving the officers of the law discretion regarding what articles
they should seize as, in fact, taken also were a portable typewriter and 2 wooden
boxes.
 In the recent rulings of this Court, search warrants of similar description were
considered null and void for being too general.
Umil v. Ramos Sec. 5. Arrest without warrant; when lawful. – A peace officer or private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:
 When, in his presence the person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit an offense;
 When an offense has in fact been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
 When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or a place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined
while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.
People v. Macarios Without a search warrant, P02 Pallayoc searched a bag in a jeepney. It was without an owner
at the time of the search and the jeepney was in motion. The search was due to a tip from an
intelligence agent that marijuana was to be transported via jeepney. When the jeepney ride
came to a halt, Pallayoc saw that the bags were taken by Belen Mariacos who he immediately
arrested. Mariacos invokes an invalid search. Court held that search is valid even without
warrant as it is an established exception that a warrantless search can be conducted on a
moving vehicle provided there is probable cause.
Fajardo v. People
Codes v. People No crime was plainly exposed to the view of the arresting officers
that authorized the arrest of accused Antiquera without warrant rule.
Considering that his arrest was illegal, the search and seizure that resulted from it was likewise
illegal.
 The various drug paraphernalia that the police officers allegedly found in the house and seized
are inadmissible.
People v. Calantiao Breaking of chain of custody of evidence does not immediately render it inadmissible.
Accused prays for evidence against him be Failure to strictly comply with Sec. 21 (of the Dangerous Drugs Act) the, such as immediately
declared inadmissible on the ground that it marking seized drugs, will not automatically impair the integrity of chain of custody
was not marked as such. He raises possible What’s important is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
questions on the integrity of chain of custody items. Reason: utilized in the determination of the guilt or innocence of the accused
of evidence. IRR (of the Dangerous Drugs Act) don’t even mention marking; only physical
inventory and taking of photographs
There was no showing of bad faith, ill will, or tampering of
evidence, so the presumption that the integrity of the evidence has
been preserved will remain.
People v. Cogaed The RTC and CA found him guilty and recognized that the search done by the police enforcers
Cogaed was asked to carry a bag by a friend was lawful as it was a consented search. However, the SC reversed the decision and acquitted
he coincidentally road a jeep with. As he Cogaed
alighted from the jeep, police enforcers on the grounds that such search was invalid. It was not a consented search, nor was it a
approached him and his friend and asked him Search Incidental to a Lawful Arrest. It was an invalid Stop and Frisk, for a lack of “suspicious
to open his bag, which they complied with. activity” for Cogaed.
Upon opening, they found 4 bricks of
Marijuana flowering tops inside and so
Cogaed was indicted for illegal possession of
dangerous drugs.
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.

Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety
or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.