SEC. 3. Personal property to be seized.

– A search
warrant may be issued for the search
and seizure of personal property:
(a) Subject of the offense;
(b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or
fruits of the offense; or
(c) Used or intended to be used as the means
of committing an offense. (2a)

Take note that onlyp e rso n a l property may be

seized pursuant to a search warrant. lets us connect
this with
Section 4:
SEC. 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. – A
search warrant shall not issue exceptupon
probable cause in connection with one specific
offense to be determined personallyby the
judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and thewitness
he may produce, and particularly describing
the place to be searched and thethings to be
seized which may be anywhere in the
Philippines. (3a)

SEC. 5. Examination of complainant; record. – The

judge must, before issuing thewarrant,
personally examine in the form of searching
questions and answers, in writingand under
oath, the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce on facts personallyknown to
them and attach to the record their sworn
statements, together with theaffidavits
submitted. (4a)
 Q: What are the requisites for the issuance of a
search warrant?
A: There are five (5) requisites for the issuance of a
search warrant:
1.There must be an application which must be under
oath;
2.There must be an affidavit in support of the
application. The affidavit must be based on the
personal
knowledge of the affiant.

That is why under Section 5, the judge

must, before issuing the warrant,
personally examine inthe form of
searching questions and answers, in
writing and under oath, the complainant
and hiswitnesses to find out what the
affiant really know what he is talking
about. And everything must bereduced in
writing.

Now, you cannot apply here in Rule 126

the ruling in Lim vs. Felix that a judge can
just look at theaffidavits and determine
whether to issue or not to issue a warrant
of arrest. The ruling inL im isbased on the
issuance of warrant of arrest after
preliminary investigation. But we are
talking here(Rule 126) of a search
warrant. Here, it must be literal – there
must really be a personal examination.
3.The search warrant must particularly describe the
place or the person to be searched and the things to
be
seized;
4.There is probable cause for its issuance;
Q: What do you mean by probable cause for the
purpose of issuing a search warrant?
A: Probable cause refers to such facts and
circumstances which could lead a reasonably
discreetand prudent man to believe that an offense
has been committed and that the item(s), article(s)
orobject(s) sought in connection with said offense or
subject to seizure and destruction by law is in
theplace to be searched. (People vs. Encinada,
October 2, 1997).
In one case, the SC said that probable cause does
not mean actual and positive cause, nor does
it import absolute certainty. The requirement is less
than certainty or proof, but more than suspicion
or possibility. (Columbia Pictures vs. CA, August 26,
1996)
5.The search warrant shall be issued in connection
with but one offense
So for example, I suspect that in your building, there
are many objects there. There areunlicensed
firearms. Meron din diyan shabu. And there are also
smuggled goods. So three laws areviolated – illegal
possession of firearms, prohibited drugs, and
customs law.
So gawa tayo ng isang search warrant lang to seize
those objects – shabu, firearms, smuggledgoods – ah
hindi puwede yan! because “one search warrant, one
offense.” So there must be threedifferent search
warrants. Otherwise the search warrant is age ne ra
l warrant which is prohibitedunder the Constitution.
And one of the leading case regarding on that issue
is the case of STONEHIILL vs. DIOKNO (20 SCRA
383)where a search warrant was issued against an
American businessman who had a violation daw ng
NIRC, RPC,etc. – gi-one time ba! And it was declared
as null and void by the SC because there were so
many items whichwere allegedly seized in
connection with violation of different laws like NIRC,
RPC, Central Bank Act. That is ageneral warrant.
However, if we go by jurisprudence on general
warrants, it is not really necessary that in order to be
classified
as a general warrant, it was issued for several
offenses under different laws. For example in the
case of

BURGOS, SR.vs. CHIEF OF STAFF

December 26, 1984 (134 SCRA)
FACTS: A search warrant was issued to raid the
editorial offices of Metropolitan Mail andWe
Forum (predecessor of Malaya) somewhere in
Quezon City. What were going to be confiscated
were
materials, pamphlets, printing machines to stop the
paper from publishing on the alleged violation
ofAnti-Subversion Act (PD 885) during the time of
Marcos. Burgos challenged the validity of the
searchwarrant before the SC.
 ISSUE #1: According to Burgos, “You cannot seize
those things because I am not the owner of
those. I am just leasing them.” Can you only seize
from somebody objects which he owned?
HELD: NO, because there is no provision in the law
to that effect. And under Section 3, you can
seize “stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or
fruits of the offense.” For example, you can issue
awarrant to seize stolen property from a thief or
robber. Is the thief or robber the owner the owner
ofthose stolen property? Of course not! So, there is
no requirement that you can only seize it from
itsowner. Talo si Burgos sa issue na yan.
ISSUE #2: According to Burgos, you cannot seize
the printing equipments because under the law
you can only seize personal property. These printing
machines are all attached to the building andunder
the law on Property, when a machinery is attached
to the immovable, it becomes immovable orreal
property also. And you cannot seize a real propert
HELD: You are correct BUT there is an EXCEPTION –
if the machine is attached by somebody
who is not the owner of the building, then the
machine is still a movable property. So, tinamaan na
naman siya dun.
ISSUE #3: Was the search warrant a general
warrant?
HELD: YES. What were seized were paraphernalia,
pamphlets, printing machines, etc. which,
according to the search warrant, were used in
committing the crime of subversion under PD 885.
So
there is only one law violated unlike in the case ofS
to ne h ill na marami.
But sabi ng SC, the search warrant is a general
warrant. It is true that there is only one lawviolated
but there are many sections in the Decree. You must
allege the section violated, otherwise itbecomes a
general warrant.
So if you just say that the search warrant is for
violation of a law, then that is a general warrant. You
mustpoint out the section which was allegedly
violated. So in the case ofBu rg o s, the search
warrant was declared as ageneral warrant inspite of
the fact that only one law was violated.
As a matter of fact, the concurring opinion of
formerJu stice Abad Santos was clearer eh. He said,
“In the
case at bar nothing specifically subversive has been
alleged; stated only is the claim that certain objects
wer

being used as instruments and means of committing

the offense of subversion punishable under P.D. No.
885, asamended. There is no mention of any specific
provision of the decree. It would be legal heresy, of
the highestorder, to convict anybody of violating the
decree without reference to any determinate
provision thereof.
“The obvious question is: Why were the documents,
pamphlets, leaflets, books, etc. subversive? What
didthey contain to make them subversive? There is
nothing in the applications nor in the warrants which
answers thequestions. I must, therefore, conclude
that the warrants aregeneral warrants which are
obnoxious to theConstitution.”
Let’s distinguishBu rg o s in the case of
 OLAESvs. PEOPLE
155 SCRA 486 [1987]
FACTS: The caption of the search warrant states
that it is in connection with “Violation of RA
6425, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Acts
of 1972.” The text of the warrant however
says,“There is probable cause to believe that Olaes
has in his possession and control and custody
ofmarijuana dried stalks/leaves/seeds/cigarettes and
other regulated/prohibited and exempt
narcoticspreparations which is the subject of the
offense stated above.” Olaes argued that the
warrant is ageneral warrant because it does not
specifically point to certain provisions in the
Dangerous Drugs Act.
HELD: Olaes is correct BUT there is only once
section in marijuana. So what are we talking? So,
even if it is not mentioned, it is understood that it
points to marijuana

PEOPLEvs. DICHOSO
223 SCRA 174
FACTS: A search warrant was issued for the seizure
at Dichoso residence of shabu, marijuana,
paraphernalia, etc. Dichoso argued that his illegal
possession of shabu, marijuana and
paraphernaliaare covered by different articles and
sections of the Dangerous Drugs Act. Hence, the
warrant is ageneral warrant.
HELD: Teka muna! Marijuana is regulated, shabu is
also prohibited. But they both of them belong
 to one family – dangerous drugs. So magkapatid
man yan! Pareho na rin iyan!
“The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 is a special law
that deals specifically with dangerous drugswhich
are subsumed into "prohibited" and "regulated"
drugs and defines and penalizes categories
ofoffenses which are closely related or which belong
to the same class of species. Accordingly, one
(1)search warrant may thus be validly issued for the
said violations of the Dangerous Drugs Act

PRUDENTEvs. DAYRIT
180 SCRA 69 (1989)
FACTS: The application for search warrant was
captioned: “For Violation of PD No. 1866 (Illegal
Possession of Firearms, ETC.)” And what were taken
were firearms and explosives. The validity ofthe
search warrant was questioned on the ground that
there are two different violations – firearmsand
explosives.
HELD: “Such illegal possession of items destructive
of life and property are related offenses or
belong to the same species, as to be subsumed
within the category of illegal possession of firearms,
etc. under P.D. No. 1866.”
So the word“et ce te ra ” covers them all.
Another interesting case is the 1988 case
of Twentieth Century Fox vs. CA (164 SCRA 655),
reiterated in
Columbia Pictures vs. Flores (June 29, 1993). It refers
to a violation of PD 49 (otherwise known as the
Decree on
 the Protection of Intellectual Property) on anti-film
piracy during the height of betamax tapes.

TWENTIETH CENTURY FOXvs. COURT OF APPEA

164 SCRA 655
FACTS: A search warrant was issued for alleged
violation of Anti-Piracy Law. The things to be
seized were video tapes, television sets, video
cassette recorders, rewinders, tape cleaners, and
almost everything.
HELD: The warrant is general. It is void. Why? Of
course, if you seize the tapes, puwede pa yan.
But why will you seize television sets, video cassette
recorders, rewinders, etc? Are they illegal
objects?
“Television sets, video cassette recorders, rewinders
and tape cleaners are articles which can befound in
a video tape store engaged in the legitimate
business of lending or renting out betamaxtapes. In
short, these articles and appliances are generally
connected with, or related to a legitimatebusiness
not necessarily involving piracy of intellectual
property or infringement of copyright laws.Hence,
including these articles without specification and/or
particularity that they were reallyinstruments in
violating an Anti-Piracy law makes the search
warrant too general which could result inthe
confiscation of all items found in any video store

PEOPLEvs. COURT OF APPEALS

216 SCRA 101
FACTS: The body of the search warrant stated was
that the items were “Stolen or Embezzled
 and proceeds or fruits of the offense, used or
intended to be used as the means of committing the
offense.” So, practically, the policeman copied the
whole of Section 3.
HELD: The warrant is void. “The warrant was a
scatter-shot warrant that could refer "to robbery,
theft, qualified theft or estafa." On this score alone,
the search warrant was totally null and void.”
SEC. 6. Issuance and form of search warrant. – If
the judge is satisfied of the existence offacts
upon which the application is based or that
there is probable cause to believe thatthey
exist, he shall issue the warrant, which must
be substantially in the form prescribedby
these Rules. (5a)
SEC. 7. Right to break door or window to effect
search. – The officer, if refused admittanceto
the place of directed search after giving notice
of his purpose and authority, may breakopen
any outer or inner door or window of a house
or any part of a house or anythingtherein to
execute the warrant to liberate himself or any
person lawfully aiding him whenunlawfully
detained therein.
SEC. 8. Search of house, room, or premises to be
made in presence of two witnesses. – Nosearch of
a house, room, or any other premises shall be
made except in the presence ofthe lawful
occupant thereof or any member of his family
or in the absence of the latter, twowitnesses of
sufficient age and discretion residing in the
same locality. (7a)
Remember there is a similar provision in the RPC
(violation of domicile). Even if there is a search
warrant,you cannot search the house without the
presence of the owner or the occupant of the house.
Or if nobody isaround, the searching officer must
secure 2 witnesses, 2 members of the neighborhood.
They cannot search ontheir own without any
witnesses
Q: What is the reason?
A: In order that the searching party will not just get
anything which is not the subject of the warrant.
Thisusually happens. You supposed to search for
marijuana, but you brought along the refrigerator.
One reason alsois to prevent the planting of
evidence.
One interesting case here
QUINTEROvs. NBI
162 SCRA 467
FACTS: NBI raiders went to search a house by virtue
of a search warrant. What the NBI did,
because there were so many rooms, was they
conducted the search simultaneously. One NBI
searching the room and the other in another room.
HELD: That type or procedure is wrong because how
can the witnesses be present everytime the
search is made when one is in the other room and
the others in another room. “Such a
procedure,wherein members of a raiding party can
roam around the raided premises unaccompanied by
anywitness, as the only witnesses available as
prescribed by law are made to witness a
searchconducted by the other members of the
raiding party in another part of the house, is held to
beviolative of both the spirit and the letter of the
law,which provides that no search of a house, room,
orany other premises shall be made except in the
presence of at least one competent witness,
residentof the neighborhood.”
SEC. 9. Time of making search. – The warrant
must direct that it be served in the daytime,
unless the affidavit asserts that the property
is on the person or in the place orderedto be
searched, in which case a direction may be
inserted that it be served at any time ofthe
day or night.
Now, let’s go to a very important provision – Section
10:
SEC. 10. Validity of search warrant. – A search
warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days
from its date. Thereafter, it shall be void. (9a)
A search warrant has a lifetime only of ten (10) days.
Compare that with the lifetime of a warrant of
arrestunder Section 4 of Rule 113. Under Rule 113,
the 10-day period does not mean to say that the
warrant of arrest isonly good for 10 days. It is only a
directive that you will enforce it within 10 days. If
you cannot arrest, di bayaanmo! Keep it and try to
arrest the accused in the future.
But a search warrant, iba – talagang 10 days lang.
Thereafter, it shall be void. Does this mean to say
that youcan use a search warrant everyday for 10
days? NO. You can use it once for 10 days. But it
does not mean youcan use it everyday or for the
next 10 days.
One interesting case on the issue of the 10-day
period on search warrants is the 1996 case of
MUSTANG LUMBER, INC.vs. COURT OF APPEALS
257 SCRA 430[1 99 6 ]
 FACTS: A search warrant was secured on a certain
date and enforced the same on the same
day. But the raiding team could not finish the search
in one day. So they postponed, “bukas naman
ituloy.”
ISSUE: Can you still continue tomorrow? Or must
you finish everything today?
HELD: Under the Rules of Court, a search warrant
has a lifetime of ten days. Hence, it could be
served at any time within the said period, and if its
object or purpose cannot be accomplished in
oneday, the same may be continued the following
day or days until completed. Thus, when the
searchunder a warrant on one day was interrupted,
it may be continued under the same warrant
thefollowing day, provided it is still within the ten-
day period
Yaan! So that is the correct interpretation of the 10-
day period. Hindi naman kailangan na you have to
finisheverything on the same day. You may still
continue tomorrow but be sure that tomorrow is still
within the 10-dayperiod. Suppose you cannot finish
naman tomorrow? Continue on the next day? Puydi!
– tuloy! basta within the10-day period.
SEC. 11. Receipt for the property seized.– The
officer seizing the property under thewarrant
must give a detailed receipt for the same to
the lawful occupant of the premises inwhose
presence the search and seizure were made,
or in the absence of such occupant,must, in
the presence of at least two witnesses of
sufficient age and discretion residing inthe
same locality, leave a receipt in the place in
which he found the seized property. (10a)
SEC. 12. Delivery of property and inventory thereof
to court; return and proceedings thereon.– (a) The
officer must forthwith deliver the property
seized to the judge who issued thewarrant,
together with a true inventory thereof duly
verified under oath.
(b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search
warrant, the issuing judge shall ascertainif the
return has been made, and if none, shall
summon the person to whom the warrantwas
issued and require him to explain why no
return was made. If the return has beenmade,
the judge shall ascertain whether section 11 of
this Rule has been complied withand shall
require that the property seized be delivered
to him. The judge shall see to it thatsubsection
(a) hereof has been complied with.
(c) The return on the search warrant shall be
filed and kept by the custodian of the logbook
on search warrants who shall enter therein the
date of the return, the result, andother actions
of the judge.
A violation of this section shall constitute
contempt of court. (11a
Q: After the search warrant has been implemented,
what happens next?
A: Under Section 11, the officer must give a receipt
to the owner or person from whom he took it or to
thewitness. And under Section 12 [a], the officer
must forthwith deliver the properties seized to the
judge who issuedthe warrant together with a true
inventory thereof duly verified under oath. So,
receipt and then deliver.
Now, there are two new paragraphs, inserted in
Section 12—paragraphs [b] and [c] – that there is a
deadlinefor the officer to submit this report and to
make a return of the warrant. There is a deadline for
him to do that. Andthe last portion of Section 12
says:
“A violation of this section shall constitute
contempt of court.”
I do not know the reason behind this amendment. I
presume it was inserted by the SC maybe because
inother places after the search warrant has been
implemented, the court never knew what happened
to the warrant,all the things were appropriated by
the officer, they were not turned over to the court.
Maybe because of suchexperience, the SC decided
to give a deadline for the turnover of all the
properties seized and for the report.That’s only my
conjecture, ‘noh?
Let’s go to some interesting cases regarding these
personal properties subject of a search warrant.
WASHINGTON DISTILLERS INC.vs. COURT
OF APPEALS
260 SCRA 821 [1996
FACTS: According to Mendoza, the application for
search warrant is void or it should have been
rejected because when the peace officer applied for
the search warrant, there was no certification onnon-
forum shopping. Kaya sabi ni Mendoza, “How do we
know? You might have also applied forsearch
warrant in another court. So, you must certify that
you have not filed any other application forsearch
warrant before any other court.” That is a very
unique argument.
Sabi ng other party, “No, hindi yan applicable. Hindi
man kaso ito. I’m not filing a complaint or apetition
where I will include a certification on non-forum
shopping. This is just an application for asearch
warrant.”
ISSUE: Does the rule on non-forum shopping
certification also apply to search warrant?
HELD: YES, because does the law requires parties to
certify under oath that they have not
“theretofore commenced any other action or
proceeding involving the same issues in the
SupremeCourt, the Court of Appeals, or any other
tribunal or agency” and that to the best of their
knowledge“no such action or proceeding is pending”
in said courts or agencies. Di ba that’s the language
offorum shopping?
“Indeed, the policy against multiple court
proceedings clearly applies to applications for
searchwarrants. If an application for search warrant
can be filed even where there are other
applicationspending or denied in other courts, the
situation would become intolerable.” And what is
thecertification – ‘that I have not filed any other
action orp ro ce e d in g ’. YOOON! ‘PROCEEDING’!
Anapplication for a search warrant is a court
proceeding which is covered by the rule on forum
shopping.
So that was the ruling of the SC in this case. That’s
why you will see how analytical and brilliant
EstelitoMendoza is. Makita niya ang mga ito. In other
words, he can really detect these points which
normally otherlawyers will not be able to detect.
Magaling man talaga yan siya ba. Nasira lang yan
siya sa impeachment trial.He’s unpopular…pero he’s
really very good. Compared to the prosecution
panel, na outclass talaga yun. Walanglaban yun.
When I read it, grabeh talaga itong argument niya
kung saan niya pinulot ito. And he has
beensustained in the SC. Alright.
Did I tell you about somebody from Davao who
wanted to get the services of Mendoza? Wala,
ayawtanggapin. If not for the recommendation of
one of his closest friends in Davao. Sabi niya, we do
not accept forthe moment because of the
impeachment trial, we’re all busy. He’s busy. “I’m
paying!” How much? “Two million?
Three Million? I’ll pay na!” No, wala, ayaw
tumanggap ni Mendoza. That’s very small to him.
Alrigh

Let’s go now to the most controversial provision –

Section 13 – The issue on Warrantless Search and
Seizure.
SEC. 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. – A
person lawfully arrested may be searchedfor
dangerous weapons or anything which may
have been used or constitute proof in
thecommission of an offense without a search
warrant. (12a)
Q: When may a search and seizure be effected
without a search warrant?
A: Section 13 - when it is merely incidental to a
lawful arrest. A person lawfully arrested may be
searched fordangerous weapons or anything which
may be used or constitute proof in the commission
of an offense without asearch warrant.
This is because it’s absurd, ‘noh? if I’m arresting a
criminal by virtue of a warrant, or the arrest is valid
with nowarrant (because that would be valid arrest
without a warrant) he might be holding a gun or a
knife. And if you donot search him, he might stab the
arresting officer. And it would be absurd to say, “ok,
you can arrest me because
of your warrant of arrest, but you cannot search me
because you have no search warrant.” So you ask
the
policeman to go back to court to get the search
warrant. There’s something wrong there. Yung
search, dala na
yun! When the arrest is valid or lawful, automatically
the search becomes also lawful.
That is why in most cases involving search and
seizures, the target of the person against whom
something istaken is the validity of the arrest.
Because once he can prove that the arrest is not
valid, then automatically theaccompanying search is
not also valid. Because, no valid arrest means no
valid search and seizure. That is thepattern
There are so many cases here. I’m just choosing the
interesting ones.
UY KHEY TENGvs. VILLAREAL
42 PHIL 886
FACTS: This is a very old case, already asked in the
bar. There was a search warrant issued by
the court to search a building somewhere in
chinatown in Binondo, Manila on the ground that
therewas opium or other drugs in that house. So the
raiding party went to the house and announced to
theowner that they have a search warrant. So the
owner had no choice but to allow the search.
Theysearched the premises, they did not find any
opium. Wala! But, instead, what they found
werefirearms – unlicensed firearms. And because
they discovered the presence of these firearms,
theyarrested the accused for illegal possession of
firearms and seized all his firearms.
There were two questions which were asked in the
bar—
ISSUE #1: Can the peace officers seized the
firearms by virtue of the search warrant?
HELD: NO, Because a search warrant can only issue
for one offense. The offense wapossession of opium
or drugs. It cannot be used to seize firearms. So the
firearms cannot be seized
by virtue of the warrant.
ISSUE #2: Would you say therefore that the seizure
of these firearms is illegal?
HELD: NO. It is valid because in the course of their
search for opium, they discovered another
crime – illegal possession of firearms. And since they
discovered the commission of another crime,they
have the authority THEN AND THERE to arrest the
owner because the crime is being committedin their
presence. So there is a valid warrantless arrest. And
since there is a valid warrantless
arrest,automatically there is also a valid warrantless
seizure. So, dun nahuli. What gives the peace
officersthe authority is not the search warrant, but
the fact that it becomes merely incidental to the
arrest ofthe accused.
Let’s go now to other cases. We are concentrating on
the question of whether there is a valid seizure.
 Whether you can say that the seizure is incidental to
an arrest.
PEOPLEvs.
CENDAÑA
October 17, 1990
FACTS: Somebody was killed and the accused was
arrested the following day. He was arrested
on the basis of information obtained by police
officers from unnamed sources. Of course, when
theyarrested him inside his house nakita nila yung
baril talaga doon. There was really a gun which
theybelieved to be the very gun used to kill the
victim. So they seized it.
ISSUE: Was there a valid seizure? Walang warrant,
eh. We go back, we have to determine
whether there was also a valid arrest. Remember
wala din silang warrant eh, when they arrested him.
You go back to Rule 113. Is there a valid warrantless
arrest?
HELD: No valid arrest. “Accused-appellant was
arrested one day after the killing of the victim and
only on the basis of information obtained by the
police officers from unnamed sources.
Theseabovementioned circumstances clearly belie a
lawful warrantless arrest.” It is not sanctioned by
Rule113. So kapag bagsak ang arrest, bagsak din
automatically ang seizure“Considering that the arrest
of accused-appellant herein was unlawful, any
search conducted onhis person or place of arrest
which is an incident thereof, was also unlawful.
Perforce, any evidencerecovered during the unlawful
search, being made without a warrant, becomes
inadmissible inevidence against accused-appellant
and the shotgun which was allegedly the fatal
weapon cannot bepresented against him.”
PEOPLEvs. CATAN
205 SCRA 235
FACTS: Rogelio Catan was entrapped by two
NARCOM poseur-buyers in a buy-bust operation
right inside Catan’ s house. The NARCOM agents
pretended to be addicts. Pagbigay, HULI! After
thearrest, the NARCOM agents searched the
premises and recovered more marijuana. Catan
assertedthat the search of his premises was illegal.
If you look at the law, what can you search? The
search is valid, di ba? He may be search
fordangerous weapons or anything which may
constitute proof. What was search was the
premises.Dun nakita yung maraming marijuana, eh.
What was taken from him, maliit lang. Dun siya
tinamaanng illegal possession, because of the
quantity.
So Catan was questioning the search because you
did not search my body! You searched my
premises.
HELD: VALID! When you say search of the person, it
INCLUDES the immediate premises
because for all you know, walang baril, pero yung
baril pala nasa drawer niya at gagamitin sa iyo.So
it includes the surrounding premises. That is covered
by the incidental search

Catan is wrong. “Appellant was arrested in flagrante

delicto in the act of selling and deliveringmarijuana
to the poseur-buyers. His case therefore falls under
the category of a valid warrantlessarrest. The
subsequent search of his house which immediately
followed yielding other incriminatingevidence was a
search contemporaneously made and as an incident
to a valid warrantless arrest inthe immediate
vicinity where the arrest was made. That is a
recognized exception to the general rulethat any
search and seizure must be supported by a valid
warrant.” That is thegeneral rule.
When you say incidental search, it does not only
refer to kapkapan mo yung tao. Pati immediate
vicinity isincluded because remember, he may have
dangerous weapons in his body which he can use
against you. But thedangerous weapon may not be
in his body but within the immediate premises. That
is what the SC said. Thesame rule or pattern
emerged in the case of:
PEOPLEvs. LI WAY CHUNG
214 SCRA 431 [1992]
FACTS: Search without warrant of the appellant’s
dwelling. Appellant’s dwelling is just a single-
room unit, which is around 9 square meters. Maliit
lang yung kwarto ng accused. They searched the
room and found out evidence.
HELD: “The search without a warrant of appellant’s
dwelling, a single room unit with a total area
of 9 sq. m. was a valid as an incident of a lawful
warrantless arrest. The search was conducted in
aconfined place within appellant’s immediate
control, an area where he might gain possession of
aweapon

PEOPLEvs. GERENTE
219 SCRA 756
 FACTS: A witness testified that at 7 o’clock in the
morning, she saw three persons started
drinking liquor and smoking marijuana and
overheard them killing Clarito Blace. Narinig lang
niya.Nine hours after, or at 4 P.M., the police
received a report of a mauling incident. So a
policeinvestigator went to the hospital where the
victim was brought and was told that the victim died
onarrival. Patay na! Police investigator and his
companions proceeded to the scene of the mauling
andthere they were informed by the witness that she
saw the killing and pointed to Gabriel Gerente, asone
of the three men who killed Blace.
The policemen went to the house of Gerente who
was then sleeping, asked the latter to comeout, and
when he did, he was placed under arrest. He was
frisked, the police finding in his pocket acoin purse
containing dried leaves wrapped in a foil. The dried
leaves turned out to be marijuana afterlaboratory
examination.
So he was arrested for the killing, ang nakuha sa
kanya is a coin purse containing marijuana. So
dalawa na kaso niya
ISSUE #1: Was the warrantless arrest of Gerente
lawful?
HELD: YES! The eye witness Edna Edwina Reyes
reported the happening to the policemen and
pin-pointed her neighbor Gerente as one of the
killers. Since the policemen have personal
knowledge(YUN!) of the violent death of Blace, and
of facts indicating that Gerente and two others are
guilty.We’re going back to Rule 113 – what do you
mean by personal knowledge or probable cause…
theycould lawfully arrest Gerente without a warrant.
If they had postponed his arrest until they
couldobtain a warrant, he would have fled like his
companions na nakasibat na.
ISSUE #2: May the marijuana be validly used as
evidence in a prosecutionfor illegal possession
of dangerous drugs? Was the marijuana validly
seized?
HELD: YES. The search conducted on Gerente’s
person was likewise lawful because it was
made as an incident to a valid arrest. It was in
accordance with Section 12, Rule 126, citing the
case
of Adams vs. Williams, an American case: “It was
ruled that the individual being arrested mayfrisked
for concealed weapons, that may be used against
the arresting officer, and all unlawful articles
found in his person or within his immediate control
may be seized.”
PEOPLEvs. QUIZON
256 SCRA 325[ 19 96 ]
NOTE: The guideline in order not to be lost is placed
here nicely. The guideline given by the SC
is this—it is wise to remember this, because as we
said, ang premise natin only the arrest eh.
HELD: “It is beyond cavil that a lawful arrest must
precede the search of a person and his
belongings. Where a search first undertaken, then an
arrest effected based on evidence produced by
the search, both such search and arrest would be
unlawful, for being contrary to law.”
You get that? Unahin muna ang arrest—lawful—and
then search. If you will search, and in the process
ofsearching you discover something and you will
arrest him… aba, hindi puwede because how can
you say that thesearch was incidental to a lawful
arrest eh nauna yung search kaysa arrest? So,
unlawful pareho. The arrest mustprecede the search,
not the search preceding the arrest. Do not search
him in the hope that you will discoversomething
unlawful

INSTANCES OF VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCH

Q: Suppose you will be asked this question: What are
the instances under the law when there could be a
validseizure without a search warrant? What are the
instances when there could be a valid warrantless
search and seizure?
A: The following are the instances:
1.When the search is merely incidental to a valid
arrest (Section 13);
2.Stop And Frisk Rule;
3.Searchof moving vehicles;
4.Evidence in plain view;
5. Customs searches;
6. Consented search;
7.Exigent searches or searches during emergency
circumstances
STOP AND FRISK RUL
The Stop and Frisk Rule was taken by the SC from a
leading American case, TERRY VS. STATE OF
OHIO(392 US 1, 20 L Ed 2d 889, 88 S Ct 1868) cited
in the case of PEOPLE VS. MALMSTEDT (198 SCRA
401) andPOSADAS VS. CA (180 SCRA 283)
In the 1995 or 1996 bar, the very first question in
Remedial Law was: Explain what is meant by the
Terry
 Search.
Ay, maraming tinamaan dun. Ano ba ito? How do you
explain the process of Stop and Frisk which is one of
the instances where the warrantless search may be
allowed? If you do not know your constitutional law,
patay ka!
Now, ano ba itong Terry Search? Alam natin yung
Stop and Frisk. There are many factors there to
consider.First, that is normally applied to peace
officers. When they see someone acting suspiciously
at the wrong timeand at the wrong place. For
example, you are patrolling in the middle of the
night then you see somebody in thedark. That will
invite your attention. And then, the Terry Search
says you must ask questions first – What is your
name? Why are you here in the middle of the
night? Hindi ka puwedeng mag-kapkap kaagad.
Magtanong ka
muna. Find out whether you are satisfied with his
answers. Now, if somehow you doubt his answer—
like if he is
wearing a big jacket and trying to hide something—
ayan na! You can say “I will frisk you”
The guideline here is the appearance of the person,
the time, the occasion of the search. And you have
tolimit first your observation on the outer garments.
But you have to consider also, according to the SC,
theexperience of the peace officer. Because peace
officer, somehow, they have sixth sense eh when it
comes toshady characters. These are the factors
which should be taken into consideration, then stop
and frisk. Kapkapanmo. Now suppose in doing that,
firearm is taken, or anything, pwede. He cannot say
inadmissible. Under thesecond exception ito (Stop
and Frisk).
Now we’ll illustrate some cases to demonstrate how
this has been applied. Let us start with a case which
originated in Davao.
POSADASvs. COURT OF APPEAL
180 SCRA 283
NOTE: The search was conducted in Magallanes
Street, sa may RMC.
FACTS: At about 10 o’clock in the morning, two
policemen were conducting a surveillance.
Obviously, they were expecting something to
happen, or they were asked to look for somebody.
Theyspotted Posadas carrying a buri bag. They
notice him to be acting suspiciously. (What do you
meanby acting suspiciously? Let us leave that to the
judgment of the peace officer.) Both
policemenapproached Posadas and identified
themselves. But when they introduced themselves,
Posadasattempted to flee. “There is something
wrong here. Nagpakilala tayong pulis, tumakbo siya.
Why is he
running?”
So, they caught him. A check of the buri bag yielded
one caliber .38 Smith & Wesson revolver, 2teargas
grenades and live ammunitions of .32 caliber gun.
Posadas was not able to show thenecessary license
or authority to possess firearms and ammunitions.
So he was prosecuted for illegalpossession of
firearms and ammunitions.
ISSUE: Was there a valid search and seizure to make
a confiscated items admissible evidence?
 HELD: YES. “There was a valid search and seizure.
At the time the peace officers identified
themselves and apprehended Posadas as he
attempted to flee, they did not know what he
hadcommitted, or was actually committing illegal
possession of firearms. They did not know that!
Theyjust went there and introduced themselves.
They just suspected that he was hiding something in
theburi bag. They did not know what its contents
were. The said circumstances did not justify the
arrestwithout the warrant.” – klaro yan – because is
there a crime if you walk around with a buri bag? I
don’tthink there is a crime, ‘noh?)
“HOWEVER—[yaaan!]—the search, in the case at bar,
is reasonable considering that it waseffected on the
basis of probable cause.” [So, balik na naman tayo
sa probable cause.] The probablecause is that when
Posadas acted suspiciously and attempted to flee
with the buri bag, there was aprobable cause that he
was concealing something illegal in the bag. It was
the right and duty of thepolice officers to inspect the
same,Why are you running? We’re just introducing
ourselves, ba’t
tumakbo ka?” Ayan. It will arouse suspicion.
“It is too much indeed to require the police officers to
search the bag in the possession ofPosadas only
after they shall have obtained a search warrant for
the purpose. Such an exercise mayprove to be
useless, futile and much too late.”
So you can see the pattern. Alam niyo ang mga
kasong ganito—warrantless searches, warrantless
arrestsunder Rule 113—ang pag-asa mo lang dito
read as many cases as possible. Because if you will
be questioned bythe examiner, definitely it will be
patterned after one case. If you are familiar with the
cases, madaling makilala. Itwould be easy. As what
happened last year, there was a question in
Constitutional Law on stop and frisk. Sabinila,
“Uy! [si Judee na sad!] Nabasa ko man ang kasong
ito.” And it was really the same case. The same
facts, eh.Sa sementeryo, inaresto, mapula ang mata,
parang hubog maglakad…meaning, he was
suspected to be anaddict. The same! We’ll touch the
case later. I think that’s the case of Manalili vs Court
of Appeals. Alright.
We’ll compare this case ofP o sa da s with a similar
case – the case

210 SCRA 174

FACTS: Rogelio Mengote was arrested by policemen
because he was acting suspiciously. Ayan
na naman, pareho saPo sad a s eh. He was looking
from side to side while holding his abdomen.When
searched, he was found with a .38 revolver with six
live bullets. The incident occurred beforenoon time –
so tanghali! – at the corner of Juan Luna and North
Bay Boulevard, Tondo, Manila.Almost the same withP
o sa da s—ten o’clock in the morning, before noon.
But how come there is adifference in the ruling?
NOTE: Take note ha, in the case ofPo sad a s,
tumakbo. In Mengote, hindi man tumakbo. Basta
linapitan siya, nakapkapan ng baril. Mengote was
convicted of illegal possession of firearms.
He was convicted. Mengote contends that the
weapon was not admissible evidence because itwas
illegally seized, and therefore, the fruit of a
poisonous tree. Yun man talaga depensa mo,
walamang iba.
The prosecution insists that the revolver was validly
received in evidence because its seizure was
incidental to an arrest that was doubtless lawful,
even admittedly without warrant.
ISSUE: Is the evidence inadmissible?
HELD: YES. “The evidence is inadmissible. When
Mengote was arrested, he was not committing
any offense
The question is, What offense? “What offense could
possibly have been suggested by a person‘looking
from side to side’ and ‘holding his abdomen’ and in a
place not exactly forsaken? These arecertainly not
sinister acts. And the setting of the arrest made
them less so, if at all.” Eto! Kaya nasabiko, in
determining stop and frisk, you have to look at the
time, the place.
“It might have been different if Mengote had been
apprehended at an ungodly hour and in a
placewhere he had no reason to be, like a darkened
alley at 3 o'clock in the morning. But he was
arrestedat 11:30 in the morning and in a crowded
street shortly after alighting from a passenger jeep
with hiscompanion. He was not skulking in the
shadows but walking in the clear light of day. There
wasnothing clandestine about his being on that
street at that busy hour in the blaze of the noonday
sun.”
“It would be a sad day, indeed, if any person could
be summarily arrested and searched justbecause he
is holding his abdomen, even if it be possibly
because of a stomach-ache, or if a peaceofficer-
could clamp handcuffs on any person with a shifty
look on suspicion that he may havecommitted a
criminal act or is actually committing or attempting
it. This simply cannot be done in afree society. This is
not a police state where order is exalted over liberty
or, worse, personal maliceon the part of the
arresting officer may be justified in the name of
security.”
So even the SC gave a guideline. Kung alas tres ng
umaga, madilim…ahh, puydi!
PEOPLEvs. EVARISTO
December 11, 1992
FACTS: There was somebody who fired a pistol. So,
there were 2 policemen who started chasing
him. And when they chased, they found 2 people in
the corner and they started asking these 2people.
Now, one of the 2 policemen saw that the guy’s side
is bulging. When they searched him,they found a
gun. So he was arrested.
ISSUE: Whether there was a valid warrantless
search was valid.
HELD: When the police officers chased after
somebody who fired a pistol and they came upon
Evaristo, the visual observation that his side is
bulging along with the earlier report of gunfire, as
wellas the peace officer's professional instincts, are
more than sufficient to pass the test of the
Rules.Consequently, under the facts, the firearms
taken from Evaristo can be said to have been
seizedincidental to a lawful and valid arrest