CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

ii. DETERMINING PROBABLE CAUSE

A. PERSON RESPONSIBLE
ART III 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. (1987 CONSTI)
RULE 126 SEC 4: Requisites for issuing
search warrant. A search warrant
shall not issue except upon probable
cause in connection with one specific
offense to be determined personally
by the judge after examination under
oath or affirmation of the complainant
and the witnesses he may produce,
and particularly describing the place
to be searched and the things to be
seized which may be anywhere in the
Philippines. (ROC)
B. PROCESS
RULE 126 SEC 5: Examination of
complainant; record. The judge
must, before issuing the warrant,
personally examine in the form of
searching questions and answers, in
writing
and
under
oath,
the
complainant and the witnesses he
may produce on facts personally
known to them and attach to the
record
their
sworn
statements,
together with the affidavits submitted.
(ROC)
PAPER INDUSTRIES CORP VS ASUNCION
307 SCRA 253
The probable cause is not present, and
that not personally determined by the
judge and the place is not particularly

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN2015
described.
The judge failed to question witness, relied
only on the affidavit of the complainant.
Another fault is that place not identified,
particularity of the things does not have to
be described.
ROAN VS GONZALES
145 SCRA 687
The things mentioned in the warrant were
not found in the place, but found guns that
are not listed in the search warrant.
Petitioner contend that warrant is not valid.
Failure of the judge is that he limited
himself by the statements of the witness,
no probing and searching question were
done.
Judge merely stated or affirmed the
affidavit, he also did not examine the
complainant himself.
ALIH VS CASTRO
151 SCRA 279
No search warrant issued by a judge, their
based their actions from the order of a
military superior.
Court held that such order does not
dispense the requisites of a search
warrant.
This case does not fall within the ambit of
the exemptions of warrantless search and
seizure.
iii. DESCRIPTION OF THE THING TO BE
SEIZED

The requirement of particularity is designed

to prevent general exploratory searches
which reasonably interfere with a persons
right to privacy (People vs Schilling)
Does not mean that it should be described
with particularity but relate it with that of the
commission of the offense.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
KHO VS. MACALINTAL
306 SCRA 70
Certain particular ammunitions that were
found, it is not needed to describe all the
models of the firearms in the search
warrant.
To allege that they are used in the
commission of the offense is needed.
See rationale in the case!
iv. DESCRIPTION OF THE PLACE TO BE
SEARCHED
The long standing rule is that a description of
the place to be searched is sufficient if the
officer with the warrant can, with reasonable
effort, ascertain and identify the place
intended and distinguish it from other places
in the community.
PAPER INDUSTRIES CORPORATION OF THE
PHILIPPINES VS ASUNCION
307
RA 253

D. PROPERTY TO BE SEIZED
RULE 126 SEC 3: Personal property to be
seized. A search warrant may be issued
for the search and seizure of personal
property:
(a)

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN2015
E. FORM AND CONTENT OF WARRANT;
LIFETIME
RULE 126
SECTION 1. Search warrant defined. A
search warrant is an order in writing issued
in the name of the People of the Philippines,
signed by a judge and directed to a peace
officer, commanding him to search for
personal property described therein and
bring it before the court.
SECTION 6. Issuance and form of search
warrant. If the judge is satisfied of the
existence of facts upon which the application
is based or that there is probable cause to
believe that they exist, he shall issue the
warrant, which must be substantially in the
form prescribed by these Rules.
SECTION 10. Validity of search warrant. A
search warrant shall be valid for ten (10)
days from its date. Thereafter, it shall be
void.
BACHE VS RUIZ
37 SCRA 823
The judge delegated his job to the clerk of
court in examining the witness. The same
as limiting himself with the affidavits.
Remember only the judge can issue the
search warrant.

Subject of the offense;

(b)
Stolen or embezzled and
proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or

other

(c)
Used or intended to be used as the
means of committing an offense.

PEOPLE VS SY JUCO
64 PHIL 667

BURGOS VS CHIEF OF STAFF

133 SCRA 800

MUSTANG LUMBER VS CA
257 SCRA 430
FACTS:
Petioner Mustang lumber. Inc. is a duly
registered lumber dealer with the Bureau
of Forest Development.
The Special Action and investigation
Division of the DENR received information
that the petitioner is hiding stock pile of
prohibited lumbers, some though not
prohibited
but
without
proper
documentation.
SAID organized a team of policemen to
conduct surveillance at the lumberyard, in
the course thereof the team saw the truck
of the petitioner with plate no. CCK-322

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
loaded with luan and Almaciga of assorted
sizes and dimensions. Since the driver was
unable to produce the required documents
the team seized the truck together with its
cargo and impounded at the DENR
compound.
Due to the refusal of the owner, the team
was unable to gain entry thereof .
When the team was able to secure the
search
warrant
needed,
the
team
proceeded to the lumberyard of the
petitioner and seized truckloads of Narra
shorts and trimmings and slabs, including
Almaciga and Supa.
The next day the team returned to the
lumberyard and seized the stockpile of
Almaciga, Supa and Luan lumber.
Held:
The court that the seizure of the truck with
the cargo, is valid as it is a searched is a
moving vehicle.
When you implement the search warrant it
is valid for 10 days, as long as the search
and seizure is not done within a day it can
be done the next day after. Within the valid
time.
Most search warrant these day, does not
have limitation of time. It can be
implemented any time of the day.
F. VALIDITY OF WARRANT
STONEHILL VS DIOKNO
20 SCRA 383

PEOPLE VS ESTRADA
269 SCRA 383
Defects of the warrant: (2)
No specific place indicated in the warrant.

PEOPLE VS CA
291 SCRA 400

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN2015
The court held that what is important is
what is indicated in the search warrant not
what is in the mind of the arresting
officers.
2. WARRANTLESS
Exemptions:
Search incident to lawful arrest
In plain view what is obviously seen. Must
not be concealed from the view of the officer.
e.g. nag-aaral kuno sa SB meron kang shabu
paraphernalia sa table.
Stop and frisk based on the discretion of
the arresting officer. Must have a probable
cause in the mind of the arresting officer.
Consented Search a form of waiver by the
arrested person. Requisites of consent must
be: intelligent, must be freely given, willful
and voluntary.
Custom search
A. Search incident to lawful arrest.
The
search-incident-to-a-lawful-arrest
exception is authorized by Sec. 13, Rule 126
of the Rules of court which provides:
Sec. 13. A person lawfully arrested may be
searched for dangerous weapons or anything
which may have been used or constitute
proof in the commission of an offense
without a search warrant.
Parameters of a search incident to a lawful
arrest: immediate possession and control
rule
Sec 13 limits the search to the following:
1. For dangerous weapons;
2. For anything which may have been
used in the commission of the offense;
or
3. For anything which constitute proof in
the commission of an offense.
UNITED STATES V. VERDUGO-URQUIDEZ
494 US 259
FACTS:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
Facts of the Case
Rene Martin Verdugo-Urquidez was a
citizen and resident of Mexico. In
cooperation with the Drug Enforcement
Agency (DEA), Mexican police officers
apprehended and transported him to the
U.S. border, where he was arrested for
various
narcotics-related
offenses.
Following his arrest, a DEA agent sought
authorization to search Verdugo-Urquidez's
residences for evidence. The Director
General of the Mexican Federal Judicial
Police authorized the searches, but no
search warrant from a U.S. magistrate was
ever received. At trial, the district court
granted Verdugo-Urquidez's motion to
suppress the evidence on the ground that
the search violated the Fourth Amendment
to the Federal Constitution.
Question
Does the Fourth Amendment apply to the
search and seizure by United States agents
of property that is owned by a nonresident
alien and located in a foreign country?
HELD
No. The text of the Fourth Amendment
concerns "the people," suggesting a
concern with persons who are part of the
national community, as contrasted with
aliens without any substantial connection
to the U.S. Moreover, extraterritorial aliens
are not even entitled to rights under the
Fifth Amendment, which speaks in the
relatively more universal term of "person."
And non-"fundamental" rights are not even
guaranteed
to
inhabitants
of
unincorporated
territories
under
U.S
sovereign control, much less aliens.
Therefore, any restrictions on searches and
seizures of nonresident aliens and their
foreign property must be imposed by the
political branches through diplomatic
understanding, treaty or legislation.
PEOPLE VS PADILLA
269 SCRA 402
Read! A instructive on consented search
Question is the search here was valid:
Yes, it is incidental to a lawful arrest, (hit

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN2015
and run) caught in flagrante delicto
Another is, the evidence was found in plain
view.
All are admissible as evidence.
In flagrante delicto

Hot pursuit

PEOPLE VS CHUA HO SAN

308 SCRA 402
FACTS::
In response to reports of rampant
smuggling
of
firearms
and
other
contraband, Chief of Police Jim Lagasca Cid
of Bacnotan Police Station, La Union began
patrolling the Bacnotan coastline with his
officers. While monitoring the coastal area
of Barangay Bulala, he intercepted a radio
call at around 12:45 p.m. from Barangay
Captain
Juan
Almoite
of
Barangay
Tammocalao
requesting
for
police
assistance
regarding
an
unfamiliar
speedboat
the
latter
had
spotted.
According to Almoite, the vessel looked
different from the boats ordinarily used by
fisherfolk of the area and was poised to
dock at Tammocalao shores. Cid and six of
his men led by SPO1 Reynoso Badua,
proceeded immediately to Tammocalao
beach and there conferred with Almoite.
Cid then observed that the speedboat
ferried a lone male passenger, who was
later identified as Chua Ho San. When the
speed boat landed, the male passenger
alighted, carrying a multicolored strawbag,
and walked towards the road. Upon seeing
the police officers, the man changed
direction. Badua held Chuas right arm to
prevent him from fleeing. They then
introduced themselves as police officers;
however, Chua did not understand what
theyre saying. And by resorting of sign
language, Cid motioned with his hands for
the man to open his bag. The man acceded
to the request. The said bag was found to
contain
several
transparent
plastics
containing
yellowish
crystalline

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
substances, which was later identified to
be methamphetamine hydrochloride or
shabu. Chua was then brought to Bacnotan
Police Station, where he was provided with
an interpreter to inform him of his
constitutional rights.
ISSUE: Whether or not the warrantless
arrest, search and seizure conducted by
the Police Officers constitute a valid
exemption from the warrant requirement.
RULING: The Court held in the negative.
The Court explains that the Constitution
bars State intrusions to a person's body,
personal effects or residence except if
conducted by virtue of a valid of a valid
search warrant issued in accordance with
the Rules. However, warrantless searches
may be permitted in the following cases, to
wit:
(1) search of moving vehicles,
(2) seizure in plain view,
(3) customs searches,
(4) waiver or consent searches,
(5) stop and frisk situations (Terry
search), and
(6) search incidental to a lawful arrest.
It is required in cases of in flagrante delicto
that the arresting officer must have
personal knowledge of such facts or
circumstances convincingly indicative or
constitutive of probable cause. Probable
cause means a reasonable ground of
suspicion supported by circumstances
sufficiently strong in themselves to warrant
a cautious man's belief that the person
accused is guilty of the offense with which
he is charged. In the case at bar, there are
no facts on record reasonably suggestive
or demonstrative of CHUA's participation in
on going criminal enterprise that could

PCGPINEDA,RN,MAN2015
have
spurred
police
officers
from
conducting the obtrusive search. CHUA
was not identified as a drug courier by a
police informer or agent. The fact that the
vessel that ferried him to shore bore no
resemblance to the fishing boats of the
area did not automatically mark him as in
the process of perpetrating an offense.
With these, the Court held that there was
no probable cause to justify a search
incidental to a lawful arrest.
The Court likewise did not appreciate the
contention of the Prosecution that there
was a waiver or consented search. If CHUA
could not understand what was orally
articulated to him, how could he
understand the police's "sign language?"
More importantly, it cannot logically be
inferred from his alleged cognizance of the
"sign language" that he deliberately,
intelligently, and consciously waived his
right against such an intrusive search.
Finally, being a forbidden fruit, the subject
regulated substance was held to be
inadmissible in evidence.
Hence, the accused was acquitted as the
evidence was not sufficient to establish
guilt beyond reasonable doubt.