POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW > XII. THE BILL OF RIGHTS > D. Arrests, Searches, and Seizures > 2. Warrantless Arrests and Searches

Constitutional Basis and Legal Framework

Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 2, guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. No search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses.

However, this provision allows exceptions, permitting warrantless arrests and searches in certain circumstances. The Philippine legal system recognizes the necessity of these exceptions to balance individual rights and the State's interest in maintaining peace, order, and public safety.

Warrantless Arrests (Arrest Without a Warrant)

Under Rule 113, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, warrantless arrests are permissible in the following instances:

In Flagrante Delicto (Arrest of a Person Committing a Crime)
- A peace officer or a private person may arrest someone without a warrant when, in their presence, the person is committing or attempting to commit a crime. This is known as an in flagrante delicto arrest.
- Requirements:
  - The officer must personally witness the commission of the crime.
  - The crime must be ongoing or immediate.
  - Mere suspicion or hearsay information is insufficient.
Case law example: In People v. Mariacos, the arrest of the accused was upheld because the police officers witnessed the accused in actual possession of illegal drugs, satisfying the in flagrante delicto requirement.
Hot Pursuit Arrest
- A peace officer or private person may arrest a person without a warrant when an offense has just been committed and they have probable cause to believe, based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to be arrested has committed it.
- Key Elements:
  - The crime must have been freshly committed.
  - There must be probable cause—a reasonable belief, based on factual circumstances, that the person committed the crime.
  - Fresh pursuit is required, meaning the arrest should follow promptly after the offense.
Case law example: In People v. Del Castillo, the Supreme Court held that the arrest was lawful because the officers had probable cause based on the eyewitness's account, leading to the immediate arrest of the suspect.
Escapee or Fugitive from Justice
- A warrantless arrest is also allowed if the person to be arrested is an escaped prisoner—one who has escaped from a penal institution or is a fugitive from justice. In this scenario, the arresting officer may apprehend the escapee without a warrant to prevent further evasion of justice.

Warrantless Searches

Warrantless searches are generally prohibited under the Constitution unless falling under established exceptions recognized in Philippine jurisprudence. The Supreme Court has laid out specific situations where searches without warrants are deemed reasonable and lawful.

Search Incident to Lawful Arrest
- A search may be conducted without a warrant if it is incident to a lawful arrest, meaning the search is made contemporaneously with the arrest of the person.
- The scope of this search is limited to the person of the arrestee and the immediate surroundings within their reach.
- Purpose: To ensure the safety of the arresting officers and prevent the concealment or destruction of evidence.
Case law example: In People v. Chua Ho San, the search was held valid because it was conducted immediately following a lawful arrest for illegal possession of firearms.
Plain View Doctrine
- Objects that are in plain view of an officer, who has a right to be in the position to have that view, may be seized without a warrant.
- Requirements:
  - The officer must lawfully enter or be present in the place.
  - The item must be immediately recognizable as evidence of a crime.
  - The discovery must be inadvertent.
Case law example: In People v. Evaristo, the seizure of marijuana in plain view was deemed valid, as it was inadvertently discovered during a lawful arrest.
Search of Moving Vehicles (Carroll Doctrine)
- The search of a moving vehicle is an exception to the warrant requirement. Since vehicles can be easily moved, a search based on probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime is justified.
- Probable Cause Requirement: There must be reasonable grounds for the officers to believe that the vehicle contains items subject to seizure.
Case law example: In People v. Tuazon, the search of a vehicle based on a reliable tip and subsequent discovery of illegal drugs was deemed lawful due to the exigent circumstances of the case.
Consent Searches
- A search may be conducted without a warrant if the person voluntarily consents to the search. The consent must be unequivocal, specific, and freely given without coercion or duress.
- Key elements:
  - Consent must be given by someone who has authority over the premises or items to be searched.
  - The person must fully understand the right to refuse the search.
Case law example: In People v. Cogaed, the consent to search the bus passenger's bag led to the lawful discovery of marijuana.
Stop and Frisk (Terry Search)
- This is a limited warrantless search where law enforcement officers may stop and pat down a person on the street if there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is involved in criminal activity.
- The search is limited to checking for weapons to ensure the officer's safety and is not a full-blown search for evidence.
- Requirements:
  - The officer must have a reasonable suspicion based on specific and articulable facts.
  - The search must be minimally intrusive.
Case law example: In People v. Sy Chua, a stop-and-frisk procedure was upheld because the officers had reasonable suspicion that the accused was involved in criminal activity, and the frisk was limited to checking for weapons.
Customs and Border Searches
- Searches conducted at immigration checkpoints, ports, or customs areas are exceptions to the warrant requirement, given the government's interest in regulating the entry and exit of goods and people.
- Rationale: These searches are a necessary part of ensuring border security and preventing the importation of illegal goods.
Case law example: In People v. Aminnudin, the warrantless search conducted by customs officials was upheld as part of their duties in regulating goods entering the country.
Checkpoints
- Checkpoints are constitutionally permissible when justified by public safety and national security concerns. While not all searches at checkpoints require a warrant, they must still be reasonable and not overly intrusive.
- Key elements:
  - The checkpoint must be for legitimate governmental purposes, such as controlling contraband or ensuring public safety.
  - The search must be limited to visual inspection unless there is probable cause to conduct a more thorough search.
Case law example: In Valmonte v. de Villa, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of checkpoints, emphasizing that the intrusion should be minimal and should not arbitrarily target individuals.

Exclusionary Rule and the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine

Under the Exclusionary Rule enshrined in Article III, Section 3(2) of the Constitution, any evidence obtained in violation of a person's right against unreasonable searches and seizures is inadmissible in court. This rule extends to any derivative evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search or arrest, known as the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine.

Conclusion

While warrantless arrests and searches are exceptions to the general rule requiring a judicial warrant, they are closely scrutinized by courts to ensure adherence to constitutional rights. The State's duty to maintain law and order must be balanced with the individual's fundamental rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, and any deviation from these principles may result in the exclusion of evidence and dismissal of charges.