SEARCH AND SEIZURE

INTRO: The right against unreasonable search and seizure is at the top of the
hierarchy of rights; next only to the right to life, liberty and property – which
are all protected by the due process clause.

The right against unreasonable search and seizure is founded on the human
and constitutional right to enjoy life. And for life to be enjoyed, a person has
to be free and to be secure. He must be assured that, his freedom and
property, cannot be arbitrarily disregarded or transgressed by the State, even
in the name of public order.

Thus, Justice Ynares-Santiago in an EN BANC decision of People v. Molina, in

2001 on the issue of a warrantless search and seizure quoted US SC Justice
Brennan in Stone v. Powell, 1976 –

“To sanction disrespect and disregard for the Constitution in the name of
protecting the society from lawbreakers is to make the government itself
lawless and to subvert those values upon which our ultimate freedom and
liberty depend.”

Recent Philippine Supreme Court decisions have become very strict

interpretation of the Constitutional provision of Sec. 2 which provides that:

ARTICLE 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.

Sec. 2 is supported by Sec. 3 which state that:

ARTICLE III - Section 3.
1. The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable
except upon lawful order of the the court, or when public safety or order
requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.

2. Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall

be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

1
Q. What is meant by the terms “SEARCH”, and “SEIZURE” ?

 SEARCH is an invasion of privacy... because every person in a society ruled

by law, has a "reasonable expectation of privacy".
 Note that Sec. 2, Art. III - does NOT protect against all invasions of
privacy; it only forbids unreasonable invasions of privacy. (Read Sec.
2....)
 SEIZURE is the deprivation of liberty, or the enjoyment in exercising
dominion or control over a thing, be it property or person.

ART. III, SECTIONS 2 & 3

A PERSON’S RIGHT & PROTECTION AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCH
AND SEIZURES, AND UNLAWFUL ARREST:

GEN. RULE (Sec. 2): The people has the right 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.

PURPOSE: To protect the privacy and sanctity of the person and of his house and
other possessions against arbitrary intrusions by the State or govt. officers.

Q. What is the CONSTITUTIONAL BASES of the PROHIBITION of

UNREASONABLE SEARCH AND SEIZURE? (PEOPLE vs. TUDTUD, GR 144037, 26
Sept. 2003):
 The right to personal security
 The right to privacy
 The right to exist
 The right to enjoyment of life while existing.

Thus, before any person’s property is searched and seized, certain legal
procedures must be complied with, particularly the obtaining of a search
and seizure warrant.

Q. What is a SEARCH WARRANT?

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. (Rule 126, Sec.1 – Rules of Court)

2
Q. What may be seized under a search warrant?

Answer: Rule 126, Sec. 3, Rules of Court.

“PERSONAL PROPERTY TO BE SEIZED. –
A search warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of the
following personal property:

(a) Subject of the offense;

(b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the
offense; or
(c) Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an
offense.

Q. What are the ESSENTIAL REQUISITES OF A VALID WARRANT

FOR SEARCH AND SEIZURE (Art. III, Sec. 2):

1. It must be issued upon probable cause;

2. Probable cause is determined personally by the judge;

3. Judge must examine under oath or affirmation of the complainant and

the witnesses he may produce;

4. The warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and

the persons or things to be seized.

DISCUSSION:

1. IT MUST BE ISSUED UPON PROBABLE CAUSE;

“Probable cause for a search is defined as 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 searched.” [Burgos v. Chief of
Staff, AFP, GR 64261, 26 December 1984]

o The probable cause must be in connection with one specific

offense. [Prudente vs. Dayrit, GR 82870, 14 December 1989]

2. PROBABLE CAUSE IS DETERMINED PERSONALLY BY THE JUDGE;

3
3. JUDGE MUST EXAMINE UNDER OATH OR AFFIRMATION OF THE
COMPLAINANT AND THE WITNESSES HE MAY PRODUCE;

a. Bache & Co. (Phil.) Inc. vs. Ruiz, GR L-32409, 27 Feb. 1971 - “xxx the search
warrant was void inasmuch as first, there was no personal examination conducted by
the Judge of the complainant (De Leon) and his witness (Logronio). The Judge did not
ask either of the two any question the answer to which could possibly be the basis for
determining whether or not there was probable cause against Bache & Co. and
Seggerman.

The participation of the Judge in the proceedings which led to the issuance of Search
Warrant 2-M-70 was thus limited to listening to the stenographer's readings of her
notes, to a few words of warning against the commission of perjury, and to
administering the oath to the complainant and his witness. This cannot be considered a
personal examination.”

b. Prudente vs. Dayrit, GR 82870, 14 December 1989 – x x x 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 any witness he may
produce, on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn
statements together with any affidavits submitted.

In his application for search warrant, P/Major Alladin Dimagmaliw stated that "he has
been informed" that Nemesio Prudente "has in his control and possession" the
firearms and explosives described therein, and that he "has verified the report and
found it to be a fact."

On the other hand, in his supporting deposition, P/Lt. Florenio C. Angeles declared
that, as a result of their continuous surveillance for several days, they "gathered
information from verified sources" that the holders of the said firearms and explosives
are not licensed to possess them.

In other words, the applicant and his witness had no personal knowledge of the facts
and circumstances which became the basis for issuing the questioned search warrant,
but acquired knowledge thereof only through information from other sources or
persons.

While it is true that in his application for search warrant, applicant P/Major
Dimagmaliw stated that he verified the information he had earlier received that
petitioner had in his possession and custody the firearms and explosives described in
the application, and that he found it to be a fact, yet there is nothing in the record to
show or indicate how and when said applicant verified the earlier information acquired
by him as to justify his conclusion that he found such information to be a fact. He might
have clarified this point if there had been searching questions and answers, but there
were none. In fact, the records yield no questions and answers, whether searching or
not, vis-a-vis the said applicant.

4
 Evidently, the allegations contained in the application of P/ Major Alladin Dimagmaliw
and the declaration of P/Lt. Florenio C. Angeles in his deposition were insufficient basis
for the issuance of a valid search warrant.

4. THE WARRANT MUST PARTICULARLY DESCRIBE THE PLACE TO BE

SEARCHED AND THE PERSONS OR THINGS TO BE SEIZED.

 Thus, a warrant must include the street address and clear description of the
location [Example: a two-story white house in 123 Camia St. Juna Subd. Davao
City]. A warrant for one side of a duplex does not authorize search of the other
side. The same is true of apartments or condo units. It is not enough that you state,
Ecoland Condominium.... state the specific unit, floor no., street address, location.
 A warrant must describe as fully as possible all the things to be looked for in
connection with a crime that has been committed or is about to be committed. The
descriptions must be specific [Example: fake car stereo units bearing the mark
“Sony”, model nos. 110-15, 125-16, made in China, etc.]

Paper Industries Corporation of the Philippines vs. Asuncion,

GR 122092, 19 May 1999 –
“As to the particularity of the place to be searched, the assailed search warrant
failed to describe the place with particularity.
It simply authorizes a search of "the aforementioned premises," but it did not
specify such premises.
The warrant identifies only one place, and that is the "Paper Industries Corporation
of the Philippines, located at PICOP Compound, Barangay Tabon, Bislig, Surigao del Sur."
The PICOP compound, however, is made up of "200 offices/buildings, 15 plants, 84 staff
houses, 1 airstrip, 3 piers/wharves, 23 warehouses, 6 POL depots/quick service outlets
and some 800 miscellaneous structures, all of which spread out over some one hundred
fifty-five hectares."

Obviously, the warrant gives the police officers unbridled and thus illegal authority
to search all the structures found inside the PICOP compound.
Because the search warrant was procured in violation of the Constitution and the
Rules of Court, all the firearms, explosives and other materials seized were "inadmissible
for any purpose in any proceeding."

Bache & Co. (Phil.) Inc. vs. Ruiz , GR L-32409, 27 February 1971 --
“x x x the search warrant does not particularly describe the things to be seized. Search
Warrant No. 2-M-70 tends to defeat the major objective of the Bill of Rights, i.e., the
elimination of general warrants, for the language used therein is so all-embracing as to
include all conceivable records of the corporation, which, if seized, could possibly
render its business inoperative. Thus, Search Warrant 2-M-70 is null and void.

5
Q. Who may invoke the right against unreasonable search and seizure under
Sec.2?
 Maybe INVOKED or WAIVED by the Person directly Affected
 It is a PERSONAL RIGHT
 Available to ALL PERSONS (citizen, alien & artificial persons)
 “It is well settled that 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. (Stonehill v. Diokno, 20 SCRA 383 (1967);
People v. Damaso, 212 SCRA 457 )

Q . To whom is the prohibition in Secs. 2 & 3 against unreasonable search and

seizure directed?

A. It is directed against the Govt. & its agencies tasked with enforcement of
the law. It does not apply to private individuals.

o PEOPLE vs. ANDRE MARTI, 193 SCRA 57 (1991) --

 The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures therefore applies as
a restraint directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with the
enforcement of the law. Thus, it could only be invoked against the State to whom the
restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power is imposed.

 If the search is made upon the request of law enforcers, a warrant must generally be first
secured if it is to pass the test of constitutionality.

 However, if the search is made at the behest or initiative of the proprietor of a private
establishment for its own and private purposes, and without the intervention of police
authorities, the right against unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked for only
the act of private individual, not the law enforcers, is involved.

 In sum, the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be extended to
acts committed by private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful
intrusion by the government.

PROHIBITED SEARCH & SEIZURE

Q . When is a search or inquiry become a “search” prohibited or covered

by Sec. 2?
6
A. Not all searches and seizures are prohibited, only those that are deemed
unreasonable. A reasonable search is not to be determined by any fixed
formula but is to be resolved according to the facts of each case. (Valmonte v.
General de Villa, 178 SCRA 211 and 185 SCRA 665)

It is unreasonable when the search & seizure is done without any validly
issued search warrant.

Q. What is the consequence of an unreasonable or ILLEGAL

WARRANTLESS SEARCH?

A. Sec. 3 (2), Art. III provides – “Any evidence obtained in violation of

Section 2 shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding”.
(this is known as the EXCLUSIONARY RULE)

Q. What is meant by EXCLUSIONARY RULE?

o The exclusionary rule means that: evidence illegally obtained is
inherently untrustworthy and cannot be legally admitted for any purpose
in any legal proceeding. This is an American rule which was first created
by Weeks v. U.S. (1914) and made applicable to the states via Mapp v.
Ohio (1961). This rule was adapted by the Phils.

o This rule originally is NOT designed to protect the constitutional rights of

suspects, but to penalize police and deter police misconduct. The
exclusionary rule is a judicial mandate designed to help professionalize
the police. It was created as a social experiment, not a guarantee of
constitutional safeguards.

o It is a rather harsh rule. But the reason behind it is that - it is better to

let some of the guilty go free so that the majority of people would
benefit from a more thorough and professional police work. (Tom OConnor,
SEARCH AND SEIZURE GUIDE: RULES, TESTS, DOCTRINES, AND EXCEPTIONS)

o But in the Phils. we actually made the EXCLUSIONARY RULE as a part

of our constitutional provision on the Bill of Rights – Sec. 3 (2): -
“Any evidence obtained in violation of Section 2 shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding”.

o The exclusionary rule also covers or includes the FRUIT OF THE

POISONOUS TREE DOCTRINE, first established in Silverthorne Lumber
Co. v. U.S. (1920).

7
 Q. What is meant by the “FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE DOCTRINE”?
o According to this doctrine, not only is evidence illegally seized
inadmissible, but any evidence or testimony obtained later as a result
of the illegally seized evidence, is also inadmissible.

o If the "tree" is tainted, the "fruits" are also tainted.

o As a result, there is usually not enough evidence to go to trial.

o In other words, FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE DOCTRINE means

that any secondary, incriminating facts or leads discovered later in a
case from an earlier, illegal seizure, are inadmissible.

o Example: If the police illegally entered the garage of the suspect a day after the
homicide, and accidentally found the gun used in the shooting, this gun cannot be
admitted in the trial to prove that this is the same gun that the suspect used in the
shooting of the homicide victim, for this was illegally searched/seized. This is so even if
it is established: i) that the serial number of the gun is found to be registered in the
name of the suspect; and ii.) that the ballistic tests confirmed that the bullets extracted
from the victim came from this gun.
Also, other evidences found in the gun such as for example: a.) finger prints of the
suspect on the gun; b.) specks of blood and tissue of the victim on the gun barrel – will
be inadmissible in the trial, for the gun was a product of an illegal warrantless search
and seizure.

Q. Are there instances when a search WITHOUT a search and seizure

warrant issued by a judge, may be held valid?

o YES. (People v. Molina, GR 133917, Feb. 19, 2001)

o Search and seizure may be made without a warrant and the evidence
obtained therefrom may be admissible in the following instances:

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. When the accused himself waives his right against unreasonable
searches and seizures; and
6. Exigent circumstance and the Stop and frisk situations.

8
  The abovecited EXCEPTIONS to the search warrant rule and the
exclusionary rule have evolved for many reasons - perhaps to temper
the harshness of the law, trying to balance this with our need to combat
criminality.

 These legal precedents which serve as exceptions to the rule that search
warrant must be obtained before a search and seizure may be effected,
also arise from actual police work and practices in the field.

DISCUSSION:
INSTANCES of VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCH & SEIZURE

1.) When a Warrantless SEARCH is made INCIDENT to a LAWFUL ARREST

under Sec. 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court.

“ 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.”

 Note that Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the revised Rules of Court, recognizes
lawful arrest without a warrant --
“A peace officer or a private person may, without warrant, arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is
actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offense; (arrest in
flagrante delicto);
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause
to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances
that the person to be arrested has committed it; (arrest effected in hot
pursuit); and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a
penal establishment or a place where he is serving final judgment or
is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped
while being transferred from one confinement to another. (arrest of
escaped prisoners)

Q. Warrantless search/seizure may be validly made incident to an

arrest of a person committing a crime in flagrante. W hat are the
2 Requisites for a valid “in flagrante delicto” warrantless arrest?

A. To constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, two requisites must

concur:
9
 (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that
he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit a crime; and
(2) such overt act is done in the presence or within the view of the
arresting officer.

o Thus, if a person is arrested in flagrante delicto, without an arrest

warrant, he may also be validly searched, even without a search
warrant –
(a) for dangerous weapons, or anything that proves commission
of the offense;
(b) but the search must be made only within the area of control
of the arrested person and the time of arrest

Q. What are the the TESTS for a Valid Warrantless SEARCH

INCIDENTAL TO ARREST?

A. (i) The warrantless search must not be separated by time or

place of arrest.

o The item to be searched must be within the custody of the

person arrested, or area of his immediate control.
o Study/Discuss:
a. ESPANO v. CA, GR No. 120431, April 1, 1998, 288 SCRA 558, 567
b. Nolasco v. Pano, 147 SCRA 509 (1987)

(ii) The search must be contemporaneous with a lawful arrest,

and; the lawful warrantless arrest must precede the search .

o Study/Discuss Cases of :
a. ROBIN PADILLA v. CA, G.R No. 121917, Mar. 1997, 269 SCRA 402
b. PEOPLE vs. MOLINA, G.R 133917, 19 February 2001 (En Banc):
c. PEOPLE vs. TUDTUD, GR 144037, 26 September 2003

Contrast with SC Decisions in the earlier cases of:

d. PEOPLE vs. CORREA, G.R 119246, 30 January 1998, [En Banc]
e. PEOPLE vs. OMAWENG, G.R 99050, 2 September 1992
f. PEOPLE vs. DELA CRUZ [GR 83260, 18 April 1990]

10
DISCUSSION:
INSTANCES of VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCH & SEIZURE:

2. SEIZURE OF EVIDENCE in “PLAIN VIEW” – this is when things seized

are within plain view of a searching party. This is called as the Plain
View Doctrine.

Requisite Elements:
(a) Prior valid intrusion into a place;
(b) Evidence was inadvertently discovered by police who
had the right to be where they are;
(c) Illegality of the evidence must be immediately
apparent;
(d) Evidence is noticed without further search.

NOTE:
 To be exempt from a warrantless search and seizure under the
plain view doctrine, the discovery of the evidence must be
“inadvertent” (unintentional; by chance).

 There must be no poking around by the police officer, otherwise,

the discovery would not be inadvertent, nor in plain view.

 Study/Discuss cases of:

a. Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687
b. People v. Musa, 217 SCRA 597 (1993);
c. Unilab v. Isip, 461 SCRA 574
d. People v. Doria, 301 SCRA 668 [1999]
e. Abelita III v. Doria, 596 SCRA 220
f. People vs. Salanguit, GR 133254-55, 19 April 2001
g. People v. Sarap, G.R. No. 132165, March 26, 2003;

3. SEARCH OF A MOVING VEHICLE – may be allowed due to mobility of

the vehicle, which can leave immediately from the jurisdiction where
the warrant is sought.

But there must also be reasonable suspicion amounting to probable

cause that the occupant committed a criminal activity.

 CHECKPOINTS ARE ALLOWED:

o When installed by the govt. where the lives and safety of the
people are in grave peril;
11
 o Where the survival of govt. is on the balance;
o When routine inspection and few questions do not constitute
unreasonable searches;
o If the inspection becomes thorough like a search, this is valid
only if there is probable cause, as in a justifiable warrantless
search of a moving vehicle.

 Study/Discuss Cases of:

a. Valmonte v. General de Villa, 178 SCRA 216
b. Aniag Jr. v. COMELEC, 237 SCRA 424 (1994)
c. Papa v. Mago, 22 SCRA 857;
d. People v. Malmstedt, G.R No. 91107, June 19, 1991
e. Salvador v. People, G.R. No. 146706, July 15, 2005
f. Caballes v. CA, GR No. 136292, Jan. 15, 2002
g. Valeroso v. CA, 598 SCRA 41

4. WAIVER or CONSENTED WARRANTLESS SEARCH – when there is a

valid express waiver made voluntarily and intelligently by the person
to be searched.

What are the Requisites of a Valid Waiver or Consent?

(a) It must appear that the right exists

(b) The person involved had knowledge (actual or constructive), of the
existence of such right.
(c) Said person had an actual intention to relinquish or give up the right.

Source: De Garcia v. Locsin, 65 Phil. 689 [1938]; People v. Barros, 231 SCRA 557, [1994]

Note that:
i.) Passive conformity, or failure to resist or object to the execution of
warrant, or request by the officers to search, given under coercive or
intimidating circumstances, DOES NOT CONSTITUTE IMPLIED WAIVER
OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT or CONSENT. (People v. Tudtud, GR No.
144037, Sept. 26, 2003)

ii.) Allowing members of the military to enter the premises, and accused -
appellant’s silence during the unreasonable search and seizure could not
be construed as voluntary submission or an implied acquiescence to
warrantless search and seizure, especially when the raiding team was
intimidatingly numerous and heavily armed. Lack of objection is not
tantamount to a waiver of his constitutional right or a voluntary submission
to the warrantless search and seizure. (People v. Comapacion, G.R No.

12
 124442, July 20, 2001; People v. Tudtud, GR No. 144037, Sept. 26, 2003; Vergara
v. People, GR No. 170180, Nov. 23, 2007)

5. CUSTOMS SEARCH OR SEIZURE to search for goods concealed to avoid

customs duties, or for other illegal contrabands, or even illegal migrants .

Study: Papa v. Mago, 22 SCRA 857, 1968; Pacis v. Pamaran, 56 SCRA 16, 1974

6. STOP & FRISK situations preceding an arrest.

 The Stop and Frisk rule originated from the US Supreme Court
decision of Terry v. Ohio, 392 US, 1,88 S. Ct., 1868, 20 L. Ed.
2d 889 (1968)

- This decision gave police the right to temporarily detain and search somebody if there
are specific articulable facts leading a reasonable police officer to believe a crime might
be occurring.

 The Phil. SC adopted the “stop & frisk” rule in:

- Posadas v. CA, GR No. 89139, Aug. 2, 1990, 188 SCRA 288,
- People v. Solayao G.R. No. 119220, Sept. 20, 1996,
- Malacat v. CA, GR No. 123595, Dec. 12, 1997

Q. What are the 2 fold interest or Grounds for Stop & Frisk?
a.) Crime prevention and detection
b.) Safety and self-protection of the police officer and others in
the immediate area; to assure that the person he is dealing
with is not armed with a deadly weapon that can be used
against the police officer. (Malacat v. CA, 283 SCRA 159).

Q. What is the Limitation or allowable scope of Stop & Frisk?

A. It is limited to protective search of outer clothing for weapons
(Malacat v. CA, 283 SCRA 159)

CONCEPT OF STOP & FRISK: (source - http://www.drtomoconnor.com)

o Standard is "reasonable suspicion"
o Reasonable suspicion is one step below probable cause and one step above a
hunch or mere suspicion.
o It is not necessary for the officer to articulate or identify a specific crime they think is
being committed, only that a set of factual circumstances exist that would lead a
reasonable officer to believe that criminal activity is occurring.
13
o Arrest, search, and seizure require probable cause, or what a "reasonable person"
would believe.
o In contrast, Stop and Frisk, requires what a "reasonable police officer" would
believe.

What is the S T O P contemplated in a lawful warrantless seizure?

o Stop is a type of seizure with two subtypes: (i) show of force and; (ii) show of
authority.
o It is a seizure of the person, or more specifically, a deprivation of their liberty.
o Two actions widely held lawful are asking for a person's identity and "freezing" a
situation for further investigation.
o The length of the stop also must be reasonable.
o Stop must be temporary and not any longer than necessary under the
circumstances.

Q. What is the test used in determining legality of a stop [and frisk] situation?

A. A stop must meet the "totality of circumstances test", looking at the whole picture,
from the perspective of both the officer and the suspect.

Q. What are the factors considered in a "totality of circumstances" test?

A. The duration, location, invasiveness, and freedom to walk away are all factors in
the "totality of circumstances" test.

Q. What are the circumstances considered to justify a STOP by police officers?

A. A STOP is JUSTIFIED in any combination of the following circumstances:
a. the suspect doesn't seem to "fit" the time or place
b. the suspect fits a description of a wanted person in a flyer
c. the suspect is acting strangely, emotional, angry, frightened, or intoxicated
d. the suspect is loitering, hanging out, or looking out for something
e. the suspect is running away or engaging in furtive movements
f. the suspect is present in a crime scene area
g. the area is a high-crime area (not sufficient by itself or with loitering)

FRISK:
 Frisk - is a type of search that requires a lawful stop.
 It involves contact or patting of the outer clothing to detect by sense of touch if a
concealed weapon is being carried. The one and only purpose of a frisk is to dispel
suspicions of danger (to the officer and other persons; i.e., that this person isn't
armed & dangerous).
14
  A frisk is a search for concealed weapons, necessarily involving an invasion of
privacy.

 A frisk is ALWAYS justified in the following circumstances:

a. there are concerns of safety for the officer and for others
b. there is suspicion that the suspect is armed & dangerous
c. there is suspicion that the suspect is about to commit a crime & a weapon is
commonly used

 A frisk MAY BE justified in the following circumstances:

a. the officer is alone and backup has not yet arrived
b. the number of suspects and their physical size
c. the emotions, behavior, and look of the suspects
d. the suspect gave evasive answers (that didn't dispel fear) during the initial stop
e. the time of day, and the geographical surroundings (not sufficient by themselves
to justify a frisk)

SPECIAL SITUATIONS:
 Military or police checkpoints.

7. EXIGENT & EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES may justify a warrantless

search and seizure.

 When the police officers have no opportunity to apply for and

secure a warrant from the courts which are closed, and members
of the those who launched a coup d’ etat where reported to be in
the building to be searched. (People v. De Gracia, 233 SCRA 729, 1994)

 The exigent circumstances of - hot pursuit, a fleeing suspect, a moving

vehicle, the public place and the raining night time - all created a
situation in which speed is essential and delay improvident. ( Robin Padilla
v. CA, G.R No. 121917, Mar. 1997)

15