C. Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures

Trial Court Discretion

There is no exact test for the determination of probable cause in the issuance of search warrants. It is a matter wholly dependent on the finding of trial judges in the process of exercising their judicial function. They determine probable cause based on whether a specific offense has been committed and the items sought in connection with it are in the place to be searched. (Worldwide Web Corporation v. People, G.R. No. 161106, Jan. 13, 2014)

Probable Cause Required

The constitutional text does not give any ground. It is submitted that the requirement of probable cause in the preceding section (Art. III, Sec. 2) should be followed. After all, the privacy right is but an aspect of the right to be secure in one’s person. (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 2009)

“Knock and Announce” Principle in the Service of a Search Warrant

Police officers are obliged to give notice, show their authority, and demand that they be allowed entry. They may only break open any outer or inner door or window of a house to execute the search warrant if, after such notice and demand, such officers are refused entry to the place of directed search. This is known as the “knock and announce” principle which is embodied in Anglo-American Law. The method of entry of an officer into a dwelling and the presence or absence of such notice are as important considerations in assessing whether subsequent entry to search and/or arrest is constitutionally reasonable. (People v. Huang Zhen Hua, G.R. No. 139301, Sept. 29, 2004)

When Forcible Entry Justified

The officer, if refused admittance to the place of directed search after giving notice of his purpose and authority, may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house or any part of a house or anything therein to execute the warrant or liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained therein. (ROC, Rule 126, § 7)

The police authorities’ claim that they had to use some force in order to gain entry cannot be doubted. The occupants of the house, especially accused-appellant, refused to open the door despite the fact that the searching party knocked on the door several times. Furthermore, the agents saw the suspicious movements of the people inside the house. These circumstances justified the searching party's forcible entry into the house, founded as it is on the apprehension that the execution of their mission would be frustrated unless they do so. (People v. Salanguit, G.R. No. 133254-55, April 19, 2001)

Drug, Alcohol, and Blood Test

The Court acknowledged that compelled urinalysis was a form of search but its “reasonableness” must be judged by balancing the intrusion on the individual’s interests against the promotion of legitimate government interests. What was essential was the school’s custodial responsibility and authority, the nature of the intrusion, the confidentiality of the test results and the legitimate government interest. (Vernonia School District v. Acton, 515 U.S. 64, June 26, 1995; Board of Education v. Earls, 536 U.S. 22, June 27, 2002)

The Philippine courts followed the ruling in Vernonia when it decided a case involving the mandatory drug testing of candidates for public office, students of secondary and tertiary schools, officers and employees of public and private offices, and persons charged before the prosecutor’s office with certain offenses. The SC held that the right to privacy has been accorded as a facet of the right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

On the case of mandatory drug testing provided for in the Dangerous Drug Act, the Supreme Court held the following:

• Candidates for Constitutional Offices – Unconstitutional

A law cannot provide additional qualifications other than those outlined in the Constitution.

• Employees – Constitutional

The random drug testing would be undertaken in such a manner as to protect the privacy of the employees involved. Also, the privacy interest in an office is circumscribed by the company’s work policies, CBAs, and the right of the employer to maintain discipline and efficiency in the workplace. The right to privacy must yield to the necessary and reasonable requirements of police power.

• Students – Constitutional

It is within the prerogative of schools to require compliance with reasonable school regulations, as a condition for admission or enrollment. The court found:

• Schools and their administrators stand in loco parentis with respect to their students;
• Minor students have contextually fewer rights than an adult, and are subject to the custody and supervision of their parents, guardians, and schools;
• Schools, acting in loco parentis, have a duty to safeguard the health and well-being of their students and may adopt such measures as may reasonably be necessary to discharge such duty; and
• Schools have the right to impose conditions on applicants for admission that are fair, just, and non- discriminatory.
• Persons charged before the public prosecutor's office – Unconstitutional

Defendants in a criminal complaint are not randomly picked; neither are they beyond suspicion. Certain persons are singled out and are impleaded against their will, making a medical test a tool for criminal prosecution. (Social Justice Society v. Dangerous Drugs Board, G.R. Nos. 157870, 158633, 161658, Nov. 3, 2008)

Applied Where a Police Officer is Not Searching for Evidence

The doctrine is usually applied where a police officer is not searching for evidence against the accused, but nonetheless inadvertently comes across an incriminating object. (Valeroso v. CA, G.R. No. 164815, Sept. 3, 2009)

Object Seized Inside a Closed Package

General Rule: An object is in plain view if the object itself is plainly exposed to sight. Where the object seized was inside a closed package, the object itself is not in plain view and therefore cannot be seized without a warrant.

Exception: However, if the package proclaims its contents, whether by its distinctive configuration, its transparency, or if its contents are obvious to an observer, then the contents are in plain view and may be seized.

In other words, if the package is such that an experienced observer could infer from its appearance that it contains the prohibited article, then the article is deemed in plain view. It must be immediately apparent to the police that the items that they observe may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure. (Caballes v. CA, G.R. No. 136292, Jan. 15, 2002)

Requisites

Customs searches are allowed when persons exercising police authority under the customs law effect search and seizure in the enforcement of customs laws. To be valid, the requirements are:

• The person conducting the search is exercising police Authority under customs law;
• The search was for the enforcement of Customs law; and
• The place searched is not a dwelling place or House. (Dela Cruz v People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 209387, Jan. 11, 2016)

Unannounced Checkpoints

We see no need for checkpoints to be announced, as the accused have invoked. Not only would announcements be impractical, it would also forewarn those who intend to violate the ban. Even so, badges of legitimacy of checkpoints may still be inferred from their fixed location and the regularized manner in which they are operated. (People v. Escano, G.R. Nos. 129756-58, Jan. 28, 2000)

Requisites

Whether conducted before passengers enter a bus terminal or while a bus is in transit, the inspection of passengers and their belongings must meet these conditions to be a valid reasonable search:

• The search must be conducted in the least intrusive manner, respect each person’s dignity, and minimize or avoid public embarrassment, humiliation, or ridicule.
• The search must not be motivated by discrimination, including improper profiling or stereotyping. The fundamental rights of vulnerable persons, persons with disabilities, children, and similar groups must be protected.
• The search must be limited to ensuring public safety.
• If evidence is seized, the court must be satisfied that precautions were in place to prevent evidence from being planted against the accused.

To Whom Directed: The State

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. (People v. Marti, G.R. No. 81561, Jan. 18, 1991)

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. (People v. Marti, G.R. No. 81561, Jan. 18, 1991)