Valid Warrantless Searches

1. Waiver – consented to the search

o Unequivocal, specific and intelligently given, uncontaminated by any duress or coercion,
will validate a search without a warrant.
▪ People v Omaweng
• A person who consented to the search of his vehicle cannot thereafter
▪ People v Correa
• Failure to object is a waiver
▪ People v Barros
• A peaceful submission to a search is not a waiver; merely a
demonstration to the supremacy of the law.
▪ Caballes v CA
• Consent under intimidating circumstances is not a consent.
• To constitute a waivesr, the person must have an intention to relinquish
the right
▪ People v Tudutd
• Mere passive conformity is not a valid waiver.
▪ Pollo v Constantino-David
• Right under section 2 is premised on the right of privacy.
• There are certain times where you are not entitled to right of privacy.
• 2 test: subjective (w/o the person expects privacy); objective (is that
expectation—the society can accept as reasonable)
▪ Veroy v LAyague
• Consent to check if there were rebels inside the house was not consent
to conduct a room to room search.
▪ People v Damaso
• Only the owner of the house may waive his right against unreasonable
search. Thus, the “consent” given by an alleged housemaid is not a valid
consent.
▪ Lopez v Commisioner of Customs
• Registered occupants can consent.
▪ People v Asis
• A deaf mute who could not understand what was happening ar rhe time
of the search could not have given a valid consent.
2. Search incident to a lawful arrest
o Search is incidental.
o There is a lawful arrest.
o Section 13 rule 126
▪ Chimel v California
• A search incident to a lawful arrest is not limited to the person of the
arrested individual but includes the area within his immediate control.
▪ People v Malmstead
• Valid search if there is probable cause.
 ▪ Espano v CA
• The search of the house of the accused without a warrant, after he was
arrested outside was invalid as his house was no linger within his
immediate control at the time of his arrest.
▪ People v Che Chun Ting
• The search of a room, after the accused was arrested in flagrante delicto
was invalid because he has no immediate control at the time of his
arrest.
3. Plain View
o Patenty illegal objects in the plain view of a law enforcement officer, who has a right to
be in the position to have that view, are subject to seizure and may be presented in
evidence.
o Inadvertently, it was in his plain view.
▪ People v Musa
• It must be immediately apparent to the law enforcement officer that
they have evidence before them.
• The marijuana leaves wrapped inside a plastic bag is not in plain view.
▪ Padilla v CA
• Once a lawful arrest is made, officers may conduct a protective search of
the passenger compartment and containers within the arrestee's
"grabbing distance," regardless of the nature of the offense.
▪ People v Valdez
• The court ruled that the marijuana plants found at the back of the house
was not in plain view as the officers had to enter it.
▪ People v Compacion
• After a surveillance operation marijuana plants were discovered, the
said plants can no longer be claimed to be in plain view, as its discovery
was not inadvertent.
▪ Arizona v Hicks
• Thought not a full blown search…the search was illegal.
▪ People v Huang Zen Hua
• Police may inadvertently come across evidence while in hot pursuit of a
fleeing suspect…and an object that comes into view during a seach
incident to arrest that is appropriately limited in scope under existing
law may be seized without a warrant.
▪ People v Bolasa
• Neither can it be said that the objects were seized in plain view –the
police had to peek in the window.
4. Stop and Frisk
o Terry Search
▪ Terry v Ohio
• when a police office officer observes unusual conduct that reasonably
leads him to conclude that criminal activity may be underway, and that
the person involved may be armed and dangerous, the officer may, after
 identifying himself as a policeman and making reasonable inquiries,
conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such person
to discover weapons that could be used to assault him.
▪ People v Solayao
• There was justifiable cause to “stop and frisk” when his companions
▪ Manalili v CA
• Police stopped Manalili and asked him to reveal what he was holding in
his hand, it was a justifiable stop and frisk situation and though the
seach preceded the arrest, it was nonetheless valid.
▪ Malacat v CA
• While no “probable cause” is needed, still there must be genuine
reasons to warrant a belief.
▪ People v Cogaed
• officers had no "genuine reason" for a stop-and-frisk. They relied
entirely on a tip and a driver's signal rather than observing any
suspicious behavior themselves.
• Hearsay information does not justify a warrantless search.
▪ People v Comprado
• There is nothing suspicious much less criminal in said act (nakaupo as
pasahero).
5. Moving vehicles
o People v Sapla
▪ Searches can only be valid—vehicle must be intentionally used to transport the
illegal items.
o People v Sison, Yanson
▪ You cannot search the vehicle just because of a tip.
o Saluday v People
▪ The search should me minimal and cursory—public buses only.
6. Checkpoints
o Valmonte v De Villa
▪ cursory search
▪ valid when warranted by the prevailing circumstances.
o Anyag v Comelec
▪ There was nothing to justify the intensive search of the trunk.
o People v Vinecario
▪ While routine checks are usually limited to visual inspections, the "confluence of
circumstances" here—speeding past the checkpoint, lack of ID, and nervous
behavior—created probable cause for an extensive search.
o People v Gardon-Mentoy
▪ The search was not valid because the transfer was already done while they are
opening the bag
7. Enforcement of Customs, fishing and immigration laws
o Roldan v Arca
 ▪ Search and seizure witrhour search warrant of vessels and air craft, even without
warrant is justrified (?)
o People v Gatwad
▪ Court upheld the search of a checked suitcase
▪ Once a luggage is checked in, no expectation of privacy.
o People v Johnson
▪ Still no expectation of privacy
o Salvador v People
▪ Search made by the PAF team on petitioner and his co-assused was in the nature
of sustoms search. As such, the team properly effected the search and seizure
withour a search warrant since it exercised police authority under the customs
law.
8. Emergency Circumstances
o People v De Gracia, the court held that a warrantless search during the height od the
December 1989 coup

Valid Warrantless Arrests

- A peace officer of a private person may without a warrant, arrest a person:

o When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing,
or is attempting to commit an offense (in flagrante delicto);
o When an offense has just been committed, and he, has probable cause to believe bsed
on personal knowledge of facts that the person to be arrested has committed it; and
o When the person to be arrested is a fugitive of justice.

People v Gerente

- Police had personal knowledge only of the following:

o Dead body of the victim
o Instrument of the crime
o And the account of an eyewitness pointing to the accused
▪ Is this personal knowledge?
• SC said they had personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person
to be arrested has committed the crime.

People v Sucro

- Police validly arrested a drug pusher who they observed for more than an hour an in the course
thereof saw him transact with 3 buyers. The court held that since the crime was committed in
the presence of the police, there was probable cause to arrest him with a warrant.

People v Sinoc

- A Pajero was stolen, its passenger and driver shot (12 hours before the arrest)
- The stolen Pajero was found at the bliss housing project in monkayo
 - The accused arrived and was about to take the stolen vehicle when arrested.
- Supreme court ruled that the facts are sufficient to justify the warrantless arrest

People v Baula

- Dead body was found

- Investigation revealed that the victim was in a store where the accused were having a drinking
spree
- Witnesses said that after victim left, the accused followed suit
- Ruling: mere suspicion is not personal knowledge

People v Cubcubin

- Information from alleged witnneses is not personal knowledge—hearsay.

Go v CA

- Information from witnesses is not personal knowledge.

- 6 days after the crime was committed cannot fall under the description “a crime has just been
committed”. Go was therefore illegally arrested.

Some important cases:

Umil v Ramos

- In justifying the warrantless arrest, the court held that rebellion is a continuing offense, and
hence, a rebel is always deemed to be committing an offense.

Luz v People

- Apprehension is not necessarily an arrest.

- Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order that he or she may be bound to answer for
the commission of an offense. It is effected by an offense. IT is effected by an actual restraint of
the person to be arrested or by that person’s voluntary submission.

Overt Act Test

- Information from “intelligence sources” or other tipped information is not enough to arrest a
person without a warrant.

People v Martinez

- Intelligence information alone is not sufficient – must be coupled with an overt act.

People v Racho

- Rule requires, in addition the accused perfrom some overt act.

Reyes v People

- Essentially, the validity of this warrantless arrest requires compliance with the overt act test,
showing that the accused exhibited an overt act within the view of the police officers suggesting
that she was in possession of illegal drugs at the time of the arrest.
Villamor v People

- The court finds it doubtful that the police officers witnessed any overt act before entering the
private home of Bonaobra immediately preceding the arrest. PO1 Saraspi even admitted that
from his position outside the compound, he could not read the contents of the so-called
“papelitos,” yet, upon seeing the calculator, phone, papers and money on the table, he readily
concluded the same to be gambling paraphernalias.

Effect of Illegal Arrest

- Court doesn’t acquire jurisdiction over the person of the accused. – defect that may be cured
- All evidence obtains becomes inadmissible – may also be cured but in a different time
o Evidence not objected to can be admissible even if it is inadmissible

People v Calimlim

- One day after the crime is committed does not fall within…

People v Plana

- When you enter pleading you are --- acquiring jurisdisction over the person

People v Conde

People v Villanueva

- An arrest cannot be questioned when he has already submitted to the jurisdiction of the court,
but he can still question the admissibility of evidence.

Pp v Aruta

Next meeting: section 3 & 4 recit