VIII. Right against unreasonable searches and seizures (Right to be let alone), Article III, Section 2

1. Concept – [Sec 2. Art. III: “The irght of the poeple to be secured in thier 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 a judge, after examiniation under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, particularly describing the place to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.”] 
   1. Zones of Privacy – Constitutional guarantee – [ones of Privacy are recognized and protected in our laws. Within these zones, any form of intrusion is impermissible unless excused by law and in accordance with the customary legal process. the meticulous regard we accord to these zones arises not only from our conviction that the right to privacy is a constitutional right and the right most valued by civilized men, but also from our adherence to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which mandates that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy and everyone has the right to protection against such interference or attacks.]
      1. Right against unreasonable searches and seizures
      1. Right to privacy of communication and correspondence
   1. Categories of privacy
      1. Decisional privacy – [involves the right to independence in making certain important decisions.]
      1. b. Informational privacy – [refers to the interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters.]
         1. Two aspects:
            1. right not to have information disclosed
            1. right to live freely without surveillance and intrusion
         1. Two-fold tests in determining entitlement to the right
            1. subjective test (legitimate expectation of privacy) – [Where one claiming the right must have an actual or legitimate expectation of privacy over certain matters]
            1. objective test (society accepts expectation as reasonable) – [Where his or her expectation of privacy must be one society is prepared to accept as objectively reasonable]
         1. To whom directed
            1. People v Andre Marti, GR 81561, 18 Jan 1991 – [The right applies as a distraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. The protection cannot extend to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring them within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government]
         1. Who may invoke the right?
            1. Bache and Co. (Phil.) Inc., v Judge Ruiz, GR L-32409, 27 Feb 1971 – [corporation is, after all, but an association of individuals under an assumed name and with a distinct legal entity. In organizing itself as a collective body it waives no constitutional immunities appropriate to such body. Its property cannot be taken without compensation. It can only be proceeded against by due process of law, and is protected,]
            1. Stonehill v Diokno, GR L-19550, 19 Jun 19 1967 – [the legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby, and that the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties.]
2. Requisites for a valid warrant
   1. Probable cause – [Such facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance of the warrant that, in themselves, are sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely on them and act in pursuance thereof]
      1. Burgos v Chief of Staff, GR L-64261, 26 Dec 26, 1984 – [Such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be search]
      1. AAA v Carbonell, GR 171465, 8 Jun 2007 – [What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. Following established doctrine and procedure, he shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal’s report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.]
      1. People v Pastrana and Abad, GR 196045, 21 Feb 2018 – []
   1. Issued personally by a judge – [The issuance of a warrant of arrest is not a ministerial function of the judge. While he could rely on the findings of the fiscal, he is nor bound thereby. Thus the determination of probable cause depends to a large extent upon the findings or opinion of the judge who conducted the required examination of the applicant and the witnesses]
      1. Soliven v Judge Makasiar, GR 82585, 14 Nov 1988 – [It is sufficient the the judge “personally determine” the existence of probable cause. It is not necessary that he should personally examine the complainant and his witnesses]
      1. Pita v CA, GR 80806, 5 Oct 1989 – [for searches and seizures of obscene material, the court made to following procedure: 1.) The authorities must apply for the issuance of a search warrant from a judge, if in their opinion, an obscenity rap is in order; 2. The authorities must convince the court that the materials sought to be seized are “obscene”, and pose a clear and present danger of an evil substantive enough to warrant State interference and action; 3.) The judge must determine whether or not the same are indeed “obscene:” the question is to be resolved on a case-to-case basis and on His Honor’s sound discretion. 4.) If, in the opinion of the court, probable cause exists, it may issue the search warrant prayed for; 5.) The proper suit is then brought in the court under Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code; 6.) Any conviction is subject to appeal. The appellate court may assess whether or not the properties seized are indeed “obscene”.]
   1. Examination under oath or affirmation – [the personal examination must not be merely routinary or pro forma, but must be probing and exhaustive. The purpose of this rule is to satisfy the examining magistrate as to the existence of probable cause]
      1. Pasion Vda.De Gracia v Locsin, GR L-45950, 20 Jun 1938 [Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures is declared a popular right and for a search warrant to be valid, (1) it must be issued upon probable cause; (2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any other person; (3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and (4) the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized.]
      1. Mata v Bayona, GR 50720, 26 Mar 1984 – [The mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses were not enough to sustain the issuance of a search warrant]
   1. Particular description of persons, things and places – [ this requirement is primary meant to enable the law enforcers serving the warrant to 1) readily identify the properties to be seized and thus prevent them from seizing the wrong items; and 2) leave said peace officers with no discretion regarding the article to ne seized and thus prevent unreasonable searches and seizures]
      1. Del Castillo v People, GR 185128, 30 Jan 2012 – [it must be remembered that the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized in order for it to be valid. A designation or description that points out the place to be searched to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry unerringly leads the peace officers to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement of definiteness.]
      1. People v Salanguit, GR 133254-55, 19 Apr 2001
      1. Dimal andCastillo, v People, GR 216922, 18 Apr 2018

              D. Administrative arrests

              F. Warrantless searches

                             1. Consent or waiver

                             Cases:

                             – People v Omaweng, GR 99050, 7 Sep 1992

                             – Veroy v Layague, GR L-95630, 18 Jun 1992

                             – People v Damaso, GR 93516, 12 Aug 1992

                             2. Search incident to lawful arrest

                             Cases:

                             – People v Kalubiran, GR 84079, 6 May 1991

                             – Espano v CA, GR 120431, 1 Apr 1998

                             – People v Tangliben, GR L-63630, 6 Apr 1990

                             – Picardal v People, GR 235749, 19 Jun 2019

                             3. Moving vehicle

                             Cases:

                             – People v Mago, GR L-27360, 28 Feb 1968

                             – Asuncion v CA, GR 125959, 1 Feb 1999

                             4. Emergency circumstances

                             Case: People v Degracia, GR 102009, 6 Jul 1994

              G. Incidents that may lead to warrantless search

                             1. plain view

                                           Cases:

                                           – People v Musa, GR 96177, 27 Jan 1993

                                           – Padilla v CA, GR 121917, 12 Mar 1997

                                           – People v Pasudag, GR 128822, 4May 2000

                                           – People v Valdez, GR 129296, 25 Sep 2000

                                           – People v Compacion, GR 124442, 20 Jul 2001

                             2. checkpoint (visual search vs extensive search)

                                           Cases:

                                           – Caballes v CA, GR 136292, 15 Jan 2002

                                           – People v Libnao, GR 136860, 20 Jan 2003

                             3. stop and frisk

                                           Cases:

                                           – Terry v Ohio, 392 US 1, (1968)

                                           – Posadas v CA, GR 89139, 2 Aug 1990

                                           – Manalili v CA,  GR 113447, 9 Oct  1997

                                           – People v Solayao, GR 119220, 20 Sep 1996

                                           – People v Comprado, GR 213325, 4 Apr 2018 (waiver of illegal arrest, not                                                                   waiver   of illegal search and seizure)

              H. Reasonable searches

                             1. airports

                             2, seaports

                             3. public land transportation terminals,

                             4. shopping malls, hotels, resorts and other public places

                             Cases:

                             – People v Johnson, GR 138881, 18 Dec 2000 (airport)

                             – Libo-on Dela Cruz v People, GR 209387, 11 Jan 2016 (seaport)

                             – People v Breis,  GR 205823, 17 Aug 2015  (bus)

                             – Saluday v People, GR 215305, 3 Apr 2018 (bus terminal)

              I. Drug, alcohol and blood tests

                             Cases: 

                             – Social Justice Society v Dangerous Drugs Board, GR157870, 3 Non 2008

                             – Lucas v Lucas, GR 190710, 6 Jun 2011

                             – Jaime Dela Cruz v People, GR 200748, 23 Jul 2014 (Extortion)             

              J. Exclusionary rule

                             1. RA 9165 (Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act)

                             Case: People v Dumagoy, GR 216753, 7 Feb 018 (buy-bust operation)

                             2. RA 10640 (Amending RA 9165)

                             – Chain of Custody: Requirements; Effects; Sec 21, RA 9165

                             Cases:

                             – People v Garry dela Cruz, GR 205821, 1 Oct 2014

                             – People v Gayoso, GR 206590, 27 Mar 2017

                             – People v Villanueva, 13 Mar 2017

                             – Dabon v. People, GR 208775, 22 Jan 2018

                             – People v Crispo, GR 230065, 14 Mar 2018

                             – People v Que, GR 212994, 31 Jan 2018

                             – People v Sipin, GR 224290, 11 Jun 2018

– People v Teng Moner y Adam, 5 Mar 2018 (Chain of Custody of Evidence)