This document summarizes key aspects of Article III Section 2 of the Philippine Constitution regarding unreasonable searches and seizures. It discusses that valid search warrants require probable cause determined by a judge based on sworn testimony. Warrantless searches are allowed under certain circumstances like consent or incident to arrest. Evidence obtained from unconstitutional searches is inadmissible under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. The purpose is to deter unlawful searches and protect privacy.

1. Article III
Bill of Rights
Section 2
Prelim Report
SGOV 330 (C22-3)
By: Alan Piepenburg

2. 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.”
-The Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Art.
III, Sec. 2

3. Article III Section 2
The purpose of Section-II is to protect the privacy
and the sanctity of the person and of his property
and other possessions (papers, documents, effects,
etc.) found therein against arbitrary intrusions by
agents of the state.

4. Article III Section 2
Search Warrant – is an order in writing, issued in the
name of the people of the Republic of the
Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a
peace officer, commanding him to search for a
certain personal property and bring it before the
court.

5. Article III Section 2
A Valid Search Warrant and warrant of Arrest must have
Probable cause
• Probable Cause – means there are facts and circumstances
attending the issuance of warrant sufficient to induce a
prudent and cautious judge to rely on them.t have Probable
Cause
• The Probable Cause must be determined personally by the
judge.
• The Warrant must particularly describe the place to be
searched, or the person or things to be seized.

6. Article III Section 2
Search and Seizures can be made without Warrant in the
following instances:
• When there is consent or waiver – that is, if a Peace Officer
has been granted consent to enter the premise of another
for the purpose of search and seizure;
• Where search is an incident to a lawful arrest – say, a
pickpocket caught in “flagrante delicto” (caught in the act),
can be searched for his loot;
• When an officer making the search has reasonable cause to
conduct it in a vehicle believed to be containing contraband
or forfeited goods – because the vehicle can get away
before a warrant is secured.
• When the possession of articles prohibited by law is
disclosed to plain view (plain view rule)

7. Article III Section 2
•A private individual can arrest a criminal
even without a warrant, this is called
“CITIZEN ARREST”

8. Warrantless Arrest
Warrantless Arrest is allowed under the following
circumstances:
• Flagrante Delicto (Caught In the Act)
• Hot Pursuit Operation
• Arrest of Fugitive

9. Warrantless Arrest
Flagrante Delicto (Caught in the Act)
• Person to be arrested has committed, is actually
committing, is attempting to commit an offense;
• Such commission is in the presence of the arresting
individual;
• Arresting individual has personal knowledge of
such commission.

10. Warrantless Arrest
( Commission of a Crime )
• One person can arrest a person, who has stabbed and killed
another in his presence since the person to be arrested “has
committed” the crime of homicide.
• One can arrest a person, who with intent to kill, is stabbing
another in his presence since the person to be arrested “is
actually committing” the crime of homicide.
• On can arrest a person, who with intent to kill is about to
stab another in his presence since the person to be arrested
is “attempting to commit” the crime of homicide

11. Warrantless Arrest
Hot Pursuit Operation
Hot Pursuit – Hot Pursuit Arrest takes effect when a crime has
just in fact been committed and the arresting officer or
private individual has probable cause to believe based on
personal facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested
has committed it.
Elements of Hot Pursuit Arrest:
• Time Element – that an offense has just been committed,
which connotes an immediacy in point of time.
• Personal Knowledge – that the arresting officer or individual
must have probable cause based on personal knowledge of
fact or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed the crime.

12. Article III Section 2
(Continuing Crime Doctrine )
Rebellion is a continuing crime. For example if one has
been a rebel since 1988, he is continuously committing
the crime of rebellion from 1988 up to the present. Thus,
police officers or military men who have probable cause
to believe that the person to be arrested is a rebel, can
make a warrantless arrest even if the rebel is not doing
an act in furtherance of rebellion. Even if the rebel is just
sleeping, watching tv, or taking a bath at the time of the
arrest. The warrantless arrest is lawful since the suspect
is deemed caught in the act of committing the crime of
rebellion.

13. Article III Section 2
Arrest of Fugitive – When a person to be arrested is a
prisoner who escaped from a penal establishment, or
place where he is serving final judgment, or
temporarily confined while his case is pending, or
has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another.

14. Article III Section 2
Evidences obtained in violation of the right against
unreasonable search are not admissible as evidence for
being a “fruit of a poisonous tree”.
The “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine is an offspring
of the Exclusionary Rule .
The exclusionary rule mandates that evidence obtained
from an illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive
interrogation must be excluded from trial.
Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, evidence
is also excluded from trial if it was gained through
evidence uncovered in an illegal arrest, unreasonable
search, or coercive interrogation

15. Article III Section 2
The name fruit of the poisonous tree is thus a
metaphor:
the poisonous tree is evidence seized in an illegal
arrest, search, or interrogation by law enforcement.
The fruit of the poisonous tree is evidence later
discovered because of knowledge gained from the
first illegal search, arrest, or interrogation. The
poisonous tree and the fruit are both excluded from
a criminal trial.

16. Article III Section 2
Purpose of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine
and the Exclusionary Rule:
To deter law enforcement from violating peoples’
rights against unreasonable searches and seizures
conducted by government officers or agents of the
state.

17. Article III Section 2
Other Related Legal Terms:
• Admissible Evidence - Evidence permitted to be introduced at trial. Only
relevant evidence is admissible, which means the evidence must tend to
make more or less probable the existence of some fact material to the
case, or some fact otherwise of consequence to making a determination
in the case. Evidence which tends to establish facts from which one
could then infer that some material fact is more or less probable is also
admissible as relevant evidence.
• Excluded Evidence - Evidence which may be otherwise relevant and
admissible but which is not admitted and may not be considered in the
decision-making process for some reason other than irrelevance.
• Good Faith - A reasonable, honest belief lacking malice or ill-intent and
without intention to defraud. The concept of good faith appears in many
areas of law, although it is intangible and determined based on the
totality of the circumstances rather than some hard and fast rule.