Legality of arrests, searches, seizures

The Constitution guarantees the fundamental right against unlawful arrests, searches, and seizures, declaring it “inviolable” under the Bill of Rights (Article III, Section 2). This protection is a core aspect of the right to privacy and security—clear in its command yet nuanced in its application, as shown by a recently released (Feb. 25, 2026) decision of the Supreme Court ably penned by Justice Ricardo R. Rosario (People v. Bautista, Oct. 15, 2025). Its limits and exceptions are matters that every citizen, as well as every law enforcer, must understand.

AS A GENERAL RULE, no person can be arrested or searched, and no article can be seized without a warrant issued by a judge empowering law enforcers to perform specific actions. It is a constitutional safeguard, ensuring that every intrusion into a person’s life, home, or belongings carries the weight of judicial scrutiny and legal justification.

As outlined in the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, a search warrant can be issued only on “probable cause” related to a specific offense, as determined by the judge following an examination under oath of the complainant and the witnesses.

Probable cause is not determined by a fixed formula. In general, it exists when there are “facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent person to believe (1) that an offense had been committed and (2) that the items, articles, or objects sought in connection with the said offense are in the place to be searched.”

People v. Sapla (June 16, 2020, per Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa) emphasized that, absent probable cause, a search warrant issued solely on the basis of an unverified anonymous tip received via text message is illegal. Moreover, the Bill of Rights bars the use of illegally obtained evidence “in any proceeding.” Consequently, the Court acquitted the accused.

TO BE SURE, JURISPRUDENCE RECOGNIZES SEVEN INSTANCES when a search and seizure may be conducted without a warrant; that is, when the search (1) is incidental to a lawful arrest; (2) involves an article to be seized in the “plain view” of the officer; (3) is in a moving vehicle; (4) is consented; (5) is done by customs authorities; (6) is characterized as a “stop and frisk” operation; or (7) is a part of “exigent and emergency circumstances.”

I do not have the space to discuss the seven exceptions, but the plain view doctrine deserves particular attention because of its frequent, and sometimes misapplied, use in practice. The doctrine allows a law enforcer to seize evidence of a crime without a warrant, provided some conditions are met. People v. Bautista ruled that although some items were not in plain view, the warrantless search remained valid because it was done in flagrante delicto as part of a lawful arrest.

Moreover, Comamo v. People (March 4, 2025, per Justice Mario V. Lopez) clarified that, though a warrant may lack specificity as to certain items, contraband discovered during an otherwise lawful search may be seized. Thus, while the warrant mentioned only an unlicensed gun in a cabinet, the seizure of other illegal firearms and ammunition found in the same cabinet could be seized.

THE EXCEPTIONS ARE STRICTLY CONSTRUED against the law enforcers precisely because the right against unreasonable searches and seizures is “inviolable.” But its enforcement is limited by the rights of others.

At gated subdivisions, malls, or private establishments, security personnel routinely inspect bags and vehicles. Standard practice limits them to items visible “in plain sight.” More intrusive searches are sometimes allowed, but the rights of others must be respected. Accordingly, while citizens have the right to refuse, the establishments have a corresponding right to deny entry onto their property.

At home, the rules are even more stringent. Under the “knock and announce rule,” police officers must announce their presence, identity, and authority before entering and searching homes.

People v. Enriquez (Aug. 7, 2024, per Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen) acquitted the accused because the officers failed to announce their intrusion before entering the house and failed to justify why they did not. A validly obtained warrant is not a blank check for forcible entry.

In drug cases, the prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of custody of the evidence obtained via a valid warrant. People v. Acdang (Feb. 4, 2025, per Justice Jhosep Y. Lopez) acquitted the accused because the prosecution failed to establish this chain, raising doubt about the identity and integrity of the corpus delicti—the very substance of the crime.

In our democracy, every person is presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This is not a mere technicality; it is a shield against the excesses of power.

The same principle animates the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures—a reminder that the State’s duty to maintain order must be balanced by its higher obligation to preserve liberty.

Liberty is best protected by awareness, not by aggression. Rights are asserted firmly and peacefully—not forcefully. But assertion begins with knowledge that I hope readers learned today.

—————-

Comments to chiefjusticepanganiban@hotmail.com