unlawful case doctrines

7/27/2019 UNLAWFUL Case Doctrines

1/15

P a g e | 1

The Right AgainstUnreasonable Searches & Seizures:

A BASIC GUIDE

By Atty. Alexis F. Medina 1San Sebastian College, Institute of Law

Sections 2 and 3 (2) of Article III of the Constitution provide:

"SECTION 2. The right of the people to be secure in theirpersons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searchesand seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall beinviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issueexcept upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judgeafter examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the

witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to besearched and the persons or things to be seized.

SEC 3. x x x

(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of x x x the precedingsection shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

GUIDE OUTLINE

1. How to determine if the search or seizure violates theConstitutional prohibition

2. How to determine if the search or seizure is a governmentaction

3. How to determine if the search or seizure is unreasonable

4. How to determine the legal consequences of the unlawfulsearch or seizure

1Atty. Alexis F. Medina. AB Political Science, University of the Philippines (UP),Diliman; Order of the Purple Feather (OPF), UP, College of Law; Valedictorian, SanSebastian College, Manila, Institute of Law; Senior Associate, Ponce Enrile Reyes &Manlastas Law Offices (Pecabar)


2/15

P a g e | 2

I.

DOES THE SEARCH OR SEIZURE VIOLATE THECONSTITUTION?

Protection guaranteed: Immunity of persons, not places

The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is the immunityof one's person, which includes his residence, his papers, and otherpossessions. The guarantee refers to "the right of personal security" of theindividual. What is sought to be protected against the State's unlawfulintrusion are persons, not places. To conclude otherwise would lead to theabsurd logic that for a person to be immune against unreasonable searchesand seizures, he must be in his home or office, within a fenced yard or a

private place. The Bill of Rights belongs as much to the person in the streetas to the individual in the sanctuary of his bedroom. 2

Basic Requirements for the constitutional prohibition to apply

The search or seizure violates the prohibition under Section 2,Article III of the 1987 Constitution, if it is:

1. a government or state action; and

2. unreasonable

Requirement No.1: Government/State action

Rule: The search or seizure must be an action by thegovernment or state, otherwise the Constitutional prohibition againstunreasonable searches and seizures and the exclusionary rule will notapply. 3

The protection against unreasonable searches and seizures

proscribes only governmental action. It is wholly inapplicable to asearch or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a privateindividual not acting as an agent of the Government or with theparticipation or knowledge of any governmental official."4

2People v. Valdez, 25 September 20003People v. Bangcarawan, 384 SCRA 525, 11 July 2002; People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57, 18January 1991


3/15

P a g e | 3

Reason: The constitutional proscription against unlawfulsearches and seizures applies as a restraint directed only against thegovernment and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law.It could only be invoked against the State. 5 This is because Bill ofRights governs the relationship between the individual and the state,

and not the relation between private individuals.6

Requirement No. 2: Unreasonable Search or Seizure

What the constitution prohibits are unreasonable

searches and seizures.

The constitutional guarantee is not a blanket prohibition against allsearches and seizures as it operates only against unreasonable searchesand seizures. Searches and seizures are as a rule unreasonable unlessauthorized by a validly issued search warrant or warrant of arrest. 7

Reasonableness is the touchstone of the validity of a government search orintrusion. 8

Reasonable searches and seizures are allowed

The Constitutional proscription against unreasonable searches and

seizures does not, of course, forestall reasonable searches and seizure. Whatconstitutes a reasonable or even an unreasonable search in any particularcase is purely a judicial question, determinable from a consideration of thecircumstances involved. 9

4 United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109 (1984). Note that in the United States, the StateAction Doctrine was originally applied to First Amendment rights (freedom of speeh, religion,association, assembly) and Fourteenth Amendment rights (due process and equal protection).

5 People v. Bangcarawan, 384 SCRA 525, 11 July 2002; People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57, 18January 1991; see also People v. Hipol, 407 SCRA 179, 22 July 2003)6See People v. Marti 18, 193 SCRA 57 January 1991; People v. Mendoza, 301 SCRA 66, 18January 1999; Burdeau v. McDowell (256 US 465 (1921), State v. Bryan (457 P.2d 661 [1968];Walker v. State (429 S.W.2d 121), Bernas v. US (373 F.2d 517)7People v. Libnao, 395 SCRA 407, 20 January 20038Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, 570 SCRA 411, 03 November 20089 People v. Chua Ho San, 17 June 1999
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reportshttp://supreme.justia.com/us/466/109/case.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Reportshttp://supreme.justia.com/us/466/109/case.html


4/15

P a g e | 4

II.

IS THE SEARCH OR SEIZURE A GOVERNMENT ACTION?

Rule: A search by a private individual, without theintervention of the police, is not covered by the constitutionalprohibition

If the search is made at the behest or initiative of the proprietor of aprivate establishment for its own and private purposes, and without theintervention of police authorities, the right against unreasonable search andseizure cannot be invoked.10

Thus, in People v. Bangcarawan, 11the baggage of the accused was

searched by the vessel security personnel. It was only after they found shabuinside the suitcase that they called the Philippine Coast Guard for assistance.The Supreme Court ruled that the search and seizure of the suitcase and thecontraband items were carried out without government intervention, andhence, the search did not come under the Constitutional prohibition, and theseized shabu was deemed admissible as evidence.

III.

IS THE SEARCH OR SEIZURE UNREASONABLE?

Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

1. Unreasonable: Searches and seizures without awarrant

A search and seizure must be carried through or with a judicialwarrant; otherwise, such search and seizure becomes unreasonable. 12

Searches, seizures and arrests are normally unreasonable unless authorizedby a validly issued search warrant or warrant of arrest. 13

10People v. Marti, 193 SCRA 57, 18 January 199111384 SCRA 525, 11 July 200212People v. Nuevas, 516 SCRA 463, 22 February 2007; People v. Compacion, 361 SCRA 540,20 July 2001; People v. Valdez, 345 SCRA 357, 25 September 2000; People v. Tudtud, 482SCRA 142, 26 September 2003; Pita v. Court of Appeals, 178 SCRA 362,05 October 1989;People v. Chua Ho San, 308 scra 432, 17 June 1999; People v. Barros, 231 SCRA 557, 565


5/15

P a g e | 5

No arrest, search and seizure can be made without a valid warrantissued by a competent judicial authority. The Constitution guarantees theright of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effectsagainst unreasonable searches and seizures. 14

The Constitution bars State intrusions to a person's body, personaleffects or residence except if conducted by virtue of a valid search warrantissued in compliance with the procedure outlined in the Constitution andreiterated in the Rules of Court; otherwise such search and seizure becomeunreasonable within the meaning of the aforementioned constitutionalprovision. 15

2. Unreasonable: Searches and seizures under aninvalid warrant

If the search warrant is null and void, the searches and seizures madetherein are illegal.16

The search warrant must strictly comply with the requirements of theConstitution and the statutory provisions. Failure to comply with anyrequirement mandated by law for the issuance of a search warrant renderssuch search warrant invalid, the subsequent search unlawful, and evidenceobtained therefrom inadmissible. 17

If the search warrant is null and void, the searches and seizures madetherein are illegal.18

Requisites for a valid search warrant

(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 suchwitnesses as the latter may produce; and

13David v. Macapagal-Arroyo 489 SCRA 162, 03 May 200614People v. Valdez, 03 March 199915People v. Chua Ho San, 17 June 1999; People v. Barros 231 SCRA 557, 56516See Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383, 19 June 1967; Bache and Co., (Phil.) Inc. v. Ruiz, 37SCRA 823, 27 February 197117See People v. Mamaril 22, 420 SCRA 662, January 2004; PICOP v. Asuncion, 307 SCRA 253,19 May 1999; See also Asian Surety v. Herrera, 54 SCRA 312, 20 December 1973; Alvarez v.CFI Tayabas, 64 Phil 33, 29 January 1937; Burgos v. Chief of Staff, 133 SCRA 800, December198418See Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383, 19 June 1967; Bache and Co., (Phil.) Inc. v.Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823, 27 February 1971


6/15

P a g e | 6

(4) The warrant issued must particularly describe the place to besearched and persons or things to be seized.19

A search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause inconnection with one specific offense to be determined personally bythe judge after examination under oath or affirmation of thecomplainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularlydescribing the place to be searched and the things to be seized whichmay be anywhere in the Philippines. 20

Probable cause for a search warrant: DefinedThe existence of such facts and circumstances which would lead

a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense hasbeen committed and that the objects sought in connection with theoffense are in the place to be searched. 21

Probable cause: How determinedTo be determined personally by the judge after examination

under oath or affirmation of the complainant and his witnesses he mayproduce. 22

Probable cause: Personal knowledge requiredAbsent the element of personal knowledge by the applicant or

his witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of a search warrantmay be justified, the warrant is deemed not based on probable causeand is a nullity, its issuance being, in legal contemplation, arbitrary. 23

Search warrant does not justify search & seizure of anyevidence

A search warrant is not a sweeping authority for a fishingexpedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence orarticles relating to a crime. Nothing should be left to the discretion ofthe officer executing the warrant. 24

Test of particularity of description

A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the thingsto be seized when the description therein is as specific as thecircumstances will ordinarily allow; or when the description expressesa conclusion of fact not of law by which the warrant officer maybe guided in making the search and seizure; or when the things

19

Section 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution; Hon Ne Chan v. Honda Motor, 541 SCRA249, 19 December 200720Section 4, Rule 126, Rules of Court21Sony Music v. Espanol, et al., 453 SCRA 360, 14 March 2005; Nala v. Barroso, 408 SCRA 529,07 August 2003; Santos v. Pryce Gases, 538 SCRA 474, 23 November 2007)22

Section 2, Article III, 1987 Constitution23

(Sony Music v. Espanol, et al., 453 SCRA 360, 14 March 2005)

24(Unilab. Isip, 461 SCRA 575, 28 June 2005; People v. Francisco, 387 SCRA 569, 22 August2002)


7/15

P a g e | 7

described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offensefor which the warrant is being issued. 25

GENERAL RULE:

A search or seizure by the government without ajudicial warrant is unreasonable and thus, illegal.

EXCEPTIONS TO THE GENERAL RULE:

Warrantless searches that are reasonable and,thus, valid

The Constitutional proscription against unreasonable searches andseizures does not forestall reasonable searches and seizure. Whatconstitutes a reasonable or even an unreasonable search in any particularcase is purely a judicial question, determinable from a consideration of thecircumstances involved. 26

In the following instances, the search is reasonable even without awarrant:

(1) search incident to a lawful arrest;

(2) search of a moving motor vehicle;

(3) search in violation of customs laws;

(4) seizure of evidence in plain view;

(5) search when the accused himself waives his right againstunreasonable searches and seizures (consented search);

(6) stop and frisk (Terry search); and

(7) search arising from exigent and emergency circumstances.27

25Bache and Co., (Phil.) Inc. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823, 27 February 1971; Columbia pictures versuscourt of Appeals, 262 SCRA 219, 20 September 1996; Uy v. BIR, 345 SCRA 36, 20 October2000)26People v. Chua Ho San, 308 SCRA 432, 17 June 199927People v. Tudtud, 412 SCRA 427, 26 September 2006; Epie v. Ulat-Marredo, 518 SCRA 641,22 March 2007; People v. Sarap 399 SCRA 503, March 26, 2003; People v. Nuevas, 516 SCRA463, 22 February 2007; People v. Valdez, 304 SCRA 140, 03 March 1999


8/15

P a g e | 8

Other warrantless searches that are reasonable and valid

In People v. Agulay28, the Supreme Court enumerated other instancesof valid warrantless searches, specifically:

- searches of vessels and aircraft for violation of immigration,customs and drug laws;

- searches of automobiles at borders or constructive borders;and

- searches of buildings and premises to enforce fire, sanitary,and building regulations.

In People v. Johnston, the Supreme Court also held valid a warrantlesssearch pursuant to routine airport security procedure, which isauthorized under Section 9 of Republic Act No. 6235. 29

Under Section 6 of Commonwealth Act 613 or the PhilippineImmigration Act as amended, immigration inspectors are empowered to goaboard and search for aliens on any vessel or other conveyance in which theybelieve aliens are being brought into the Philippines.

VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCHES & SEIZURES:A CLOSER LOOK

(1) Search incident to a lawful arrest

Purpose of searchA person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or

anything which may have been used or constitute proof in the commission ofan offense without a search warrant. 30

2826 September 200829

People v. Johnston 348 SCRA 526; People v. Macalaba 20 January 2003


9/15

P a g e | 9

There must first be a valid arrest before a searchThe law requires that there first be a valid arrest before a search can

be madethe process cannot be reversed. 31

Limits to the scope of search incidental to a lawful arrest

As to Area: Immediate Control TestThe seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons must be either on the

person of the one arrested or within the area of his immediate control. Thephrase within the area of his immediate control means the area from withinwhich he might gain possession of a weapon or destructible evidence. 32

Should be limited to the area within which the person to be arrestedcan reach for a weapon or for evidence that he or she can destroy. 33

As to SubjectAs to subject, the search must only be with respect to the person of

the suspect, and things that may be seized from him are limited to"dangerous weapons" or "anything which may be used as proof of thecommission of the offense." 34

A gun on a table or in a drawer in front of one who is arrested can beas dangerous to the arresting officer as one concealed in the clothing of theperson arrested. 35

As to TimeThe search must be contemporaneous with the lawful arrest. The

search must be conducted at about the time of the arrest or immediatelythereafter and only at the place where the suspect was arrested, or thepremises or surroundings under his immediate control. 36

(2) Search of a moving motor vehicle

Limited car inspection: Valid even without probable causeRoutine inspections of motor vehicles are normally permissible in the

following instances: (1) where the officer merely draws aside the curtain of avacant vehicle which is parked on the public fair ground; (2) simply looks intoa vehicle; (3) flashes a light therein without opening the car's doors; (4) where

30Section 12, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure; People v. Che Chun Ting,328 SCRA 592, 21 March 200031People v. Binad Sy Chua, 396 SCRA 657, 04 February 2003; People v. Molina, 352 SCRA 174,19 February 200132 Valeroso v. Court of Appeals, 3 September 2009, G.R. No. 16481; People v. Cubcubin, 360 SCRA690, 10 July 200133

People v. Estella, 395 SCRA 553, 21 January 200334People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592, 21 March 200035 Valeroso v. Court of Appeals, 3 September 2009, G.R. No. 16481; People v. Estella, 395 SCRA 553,21 January 200336People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592, 21 March 2000


10/15

P a g e | 10

the occupants are not subjected to a physical or body search; (5) where theinspection of the vehicles is limited to a visual search or visual inspection; and(6) where the routine check is conducted in a fixed area.37

Visual search: Probable cause not requiredWhen there is no probable cause, peace officers are limited to routine

checks where the examination of the vehicle is limited to visual inspection.

38

Extensive search: Probable cause requiredWhen a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive search, such

would be constitutionally permissible only if the officers made it uponprobable cause, i.e., upon a belief, reasonably arising out of circumstancesknown to the seizing officer, that an automobile or other vehicle contains asitem, article or object which by law is subject to seizure and destruction, 39orinstrumentality or evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to besearched. 40

Extensive search must be done only when it is not practicableto secure a warrant

Warrantless search of a moving vehicle is allowed only when it is notpracticable to secure a warrant because the vehicle can be quickly moved outof the area or jurisdiction in which the warrant must be sought. 41

Search of moving vehicle principle applies to fishing vesselsand boatsSearch and seizure without search warrant of vessels and aircrafts for

violations of customs laws have been the traditional exception to theconstitutional requirement of a search warrant. It is rooted on the recognitionthat a vessel and an aircraft, like motor vehicles, can be quickly moved out ofthe locality or jurisdiction in which the search warrant must be sought andsecured. The same exception ought to apply to seizures of fishing vessels andboats breaching fishery laws. 42

(3) Search in violation of customs laws

Enforcers of customs and tariff laws are authorized to effect searches,seizures, and arrests, and to make seizure, among others, of any cargo,articles or other movable property when the same may be subject to forfeitureor liable for any fine imposed under customs and tariff laws. They couldlawfully open and examine any box, trunk, envelope or other containerwherever found when he had reasonable cause to suspect the presencetherein of dutiable articles introduced into the Philippines contrary to law; andlikewise to stop, search and examine any vehicle, beast or person

reasonably suspected of holding or conveying such articles.

37Caballes v. Court of Appeals, 15 January 200238People v. Libnao, 325 SCRA 407, 20 January 200339People v. Libnao, 325 SCRA 407, 20 January 200340People v. Lapitaje, 392 SCRA 674, 19 February 200341People v. Lapitaje, 392 SCRA 674, 19 February 200342Hizon v. CA, 265 SCRA 517, 13 December 1996


11/15

P a g e | 11

Based on Section 2203 of the Tariff and Customs Code, except in thecase of the search of a dwelling house, persons exercising police authorityunder the customs law may effect search and seizure without a searchwarrant in the enforcement of customs laws. 43(emphases supplied)

(4) Seizure of evidence in plain view (plain viewdoctrine)

Under the plain view doctrine, objects failing in plain view of an officerwho has a right to be in that position to have that view are subject to seizureeven without a search warrant and may be introduced in evidence. 44

Elements of a valid seizure of evidence in plain view(a) A prior valid intrusion 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. 45

Evidence in plain view may be seized, although not describedin the search warrant 46

Meaning of immediately apparentAt the time of the discovery of the object or facts or at the moment of

seizure, the officer has probable cause to connect the object to criminalactivity.47

Meaning of inadvertenceThe officer must not have known in advance of the location of the

evidence and intend to seize it. Discovery is not anticipated.48

(5) Search when the accused himself waives his rightagainst unreasonable searches and seizures (consentedsearch)

43Papa v. Mago, 22 SCRA 257, 28 February 1968; see also Salvador v, People, 463 SCRA 489,15 July 2005

44Abelita v. Doria, 14 August 2009; People v. Doria, 301 SCRA 668,22 January 1999; People v.Lagman, 573 SCRA 225, 08 December 200845People v. Nuevas, 576 SCRA 463; 22 February 2007; People v. Compacion, 361 SCRA 540,20 July 200146Unilab v. Isip, 461 SCRA 575, 28 June 200547

Unilab v. Isip, 461 SCRA 575, 28 June 200548Unilab v. Isip, 461 SCRA 575, 28 June 2005


12/15

P a g e | 12

The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personalright which may be waived expressly or impliedly. 49

Consent must be unequivocal, specific and intelligently givenThe consent to the search must be voluntary, unequivocal, specific,

and intelligently given, uncontaminated by any duress or coercion. The

consent to a search must be shown by clear and convincing evidence.

50

Requisites for a valid waiverIn case of consented searches or waiver of the constitutional guarantee

against obtrusive searches, it must first appear that (1) the right exists; (2)the person involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of theexistence of such right; and (3) the said person had an actual intention torelinquish the right. 51

Peaceful submission is not consentPeaceful submission to a search or seizure is not a consent or an

invitation thereto, but is merely a demonstration of regard for the supremacyof the law. 52The accused is not to be presumed to have waived the unlawfulsearch simply because he failed to object. 53

The presumption is against waiver of constitutional right.54

(6) Stop and frisk (Terry search)

ScopeLimited protective search of outer clothing for weapons. 55

When stop and frisk is validWhere a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him

reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may beafoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed anddangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifieshimself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing inthe initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for hisown or others safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others inthe area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of suchpersons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assaulthim. 56

49People v. Cubcubin, 360 SCRA 690, 10 July 200150People v. Nuevas 22 February 2007, 576 SCRA 46351

People v. Nuevas, 576 SCRA 463, 22 February 200752People v. Nuevas, 576 SCRA 463, 22 February 2007; People v. Comnpacion, 361 SCRA 540,20 July 200953

People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1; People v. Compacion, 361 SCRA 540, 20 July 200154People v. Burgos 144 SCRA 1, 1986; People v. Compacion, 361 SCRA 540, 20 July 2001;People v. Aruta 288 SCRA 62655

People v. Binad Sy Chua, 396 SCRA 657, 04 February 2003; Malacat v. People, 283 SCRA159, 12 December 199756People v. Binad Sy Chua, 396 SCRA 657, 04 February 2003; Malacat v. People, 283 SCRA159, 12 December 1997


13/15

P a g e | 13

Mere suspicion is not enough for a stop-and-frisk; theremust be genuine reason to believe that the person has a concealedweapon

Mere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a stop-and-frisk. Agenuine reason must exist, in light of the police officers experience andsurrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person detained has

weapons concealed about him.

57

(7) Search arising from exigent and emergencycircumstances

In People v. De Gracia (233 SCRA 716, [1994]), there were intelligencereports that the building was being used as headquarters by the RAM duringa coup detat. A surveillance team was fired at by a group of armed mencoming out of the building and the occupants of said building refused to openthe door despite repeated requests. There were large quantities of explosivesand ammunitions inside the building. Nearby courts were closed and generalchaos and disorder prevailed. The existing circumstances sufficiently showed

that a crime was being committed. In short, there was probable cause toeffect a warrantless search of the building. 58

Probable cause:The basic requirement in all warrantless searches

In People v Aruta 3 April 1998, the Supreme Court declared that theessential requisite of probable cause must still be satisfied before awarrantless search and seizure can be lawfully conducted. In searches andseizures effected without a warrant, it is necessary for probable cause to bepresent.

IV.

WHAT ARE THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OFAN UNLAWFUL SEARCH OR SEIZURE?

1. The exclusionary rule applies: Evidence obtained is

inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

If a search or seizure is unreasonable, any evidence obtained

57People v. Binad Sy Chua, 396 SCRA 657, 04 February 2003; Malacat v. People, 283 SCRA159, 12 December 199758also cited in People v. Aruta, 288 SCRA 626, 03 April 1998


14/15

P a g e | 14

therefrom is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. 59

Thus, evidence obtained during an illegal search orseizure . . .

(a) is inadmissible to prove the guilt of theaccused. 60

(b) cannot be used to legally obtain other evidence.

Evidence obtained from/as a result of evidence obtained in anillegal search would also be inadmissible for being fruit of thepoisonous tree.

Under, the exclusionary rule known as the "fruit of the poisonous

tree," once the primary source (the "tree") is shown to have beenunlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the "fruit")derived from it is also inadmissible. The rule is based on the principlethat evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be used to gainother evidence because the originally illegally obtained evidence taintsall evidence subsequently obtained.61

(c) cannot be used to justify a subsequentwarrantless arrest. 62

2. Even if the search was unlawful, and the evidence

obtained was excluded, the court may still convict the accusedon the basis of other pieces of admissible evidence. 63

Thus, in People v. Che Chun Ting, 64the Supreme Court declaredthat the search in the condominium unit of the accused was illegal(the area was not within the immediate control of the accused at thetime of the arrest), and the shabu seized therein was inadmissible asevidence. However, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the

59Sections 2, and 3 [2], Art. III, 1987 Constitution; People v. Nuevas, 576 SCRA 463, 22February 2007; See also People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592, 21 March 2000; People v.Sarap, 399 SCRA 503, 26 March 2003; People v. Bangcarawan, 384 SCRA 525, 11 July 2002

60See People v. Sarap, 399 SCRA 503, 26 March 2003; People v. Francisco, 387 SCRA 592, 22

August 2002; People v. Valdez, 341 SCRA 253, 25 September 2000; People v. Asis, 391 SCRA108, 15 October 2002

61People v. Alicando 321 Phil 656, 12 December 1995; People v. Domantay 307 SCRA 1, 09May 1999; People v. Conde, 356 SCRA 415, 10 April 200162See People v. Sarap, 399 SCRA 503, 26 March 200363See People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592, 21 March 2000 and People v. Rondero, 320SCRA 383, 09 December 199964 21 March 2000


15/15

P a g e | 15

accused on the basis of evidence consisting of, among others, shabuwhich was found in bag of the accused at the time the police arrestedhim in flagrante delicto in a buy-bust operation. 65

3. If the items seized in an illegal search arecontraband or prohibited by law, the same cannot be returnedto the owner. 66

However, objects and properties the possession of which isprohibited by law cannot be returned to their owners notwithstandingthe illegality of their seizure. 67

4. If the items seized in an illegal search are notcontraband, the same should be returned to the owner.68

Seized items that are products of an illegal search, and are not

contrabandper se, nor objects in connection with the offense, shouldbe returned to the person from whom the same were taken. 69

65See also People v. Rondero 09 December 1999)

66Castro v. Pabalan, 70 SCRA 477, 30 April 1976; People v. Che Chun Ting, 328 SCRA 592, 21March 200067People v. Che Chun Ting 21 March 200068See Bache and Co., (Phil.) Inc. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823, 27 February 1971; Burgos v. Chief ofStaff, 133 SCRA 800, 26 December 1984; Nala v. Barroso, 408 SCRA 529, 07 August 200369See Nala v. Barroso 07 August 2003

unlawful case doctrines

Documents