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.

 Section 3. (1) xxx.

 (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. (Art III, 1987 Philippine Constitution)


1. The exclusionary rule applies: Evidence obtained is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

If a search or seizure is “unreasonable,” any evidence obtained therefrom is “inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.” Thus, evidence obtained during an illegal search or seizure ...

(a) is inadmissible to prove the guilt of the accused;

(b) cannot be used to legally obtain other evidence;

(c) cannot be used to justify a subsequent warrantless arrest.


■ As a consequence of the illegal search, the things seized on the occasion thereof are inadmissible in evidence under the exclusionary rule. They are regarded as having been obtained from a polluted source, the "fruit of a poisonous tree. (People vs. Che Chun Ting, G.R. Nos. 130568-69, March 21, 2000)

■ Under the libertarian exclusionary rule known as the fruit of the poisonous tree, evidence illegally obtained by the state should not be used to gain other evidence because the illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained. (People vs Conde, G.R. No. 113269. April 10, 2001)

■  Under the exclusionary rule, once the primary source (the "tree") is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the "fruit ") derived from it is also inadmissible. The rule is based on the principle that evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be used to gain other evidence because the originally illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained. (People vs Alicando, G.R. No. 117487, December 12, 1995)


2. Even if the search was unlawful, and the evidence obtained was excluded, the court may still convict the accused on the basis of other pieces of admissible evidence.

■ Thus, in People v. Che Chun Ting, the Supreme Court declared that the search in the condominium unit of the accused was  illegal (the area was not within the immediate control of the accused at the time of the arrest), and the shabu seized therein was inadmissible as evidence. However, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused on the basis of evidence consisting of, among others, shabu which was found in bag of the accused at the time the police arrested him in flagrante delicto in a buy-bust operation.

"The inadmissibility of the 5,578.68 grams of shabu in evidence does not totally exonerate the accused. The illegal search in Unit 122 was preceded by a valid arrest. The accused was caught in flagrante delicto as a result of an entrapment conducted by NARCOM operatives on the basis of the information provided by Mabel Cheung Mei Po regarding the accused's illegal trade. His arrest was lawful and the seized bag of shabu weighing 999.43 grams was admissible in evidence, being the fruit of the crime." (People vs. Che Chun Ting, G.R. Nos. 130568-69, March 21, 2000)


3. Goods seized by virtue of an illegal search warrant must be returned.

■ Seized items that are products of an illegal search, and are not contraband per se, nor objects in connection with the offense, should be returned to the person from whom the same were taken. (Nala vs Barroso, G.R. No. 153087. August 7, 2003)

■ In Tambasen v. People, [G.R. No. 89103, July 14, 1995], the money which was not indicated in the warrant, and thus, illegally seized, was ordered returned. For the retention of the money, the approval of the Court which issued the warrant is necessary; in like manner, only the Court which issued the warrant may order its release.

■ The things belonging to appellant not specifically mentioned in the warrants, like those not particularly described, must thus be ordered returned to him. (People vs Benny Go, G.R. No. 144639. September 12, 2003)


4. If the items seized in an illegal search are contraband or prohibited by law, the same cannot be returned to the owner.

■ However, objects and properties the possession of which is prohibited by law cannot be returned to their owners notwithstanding the illegality of their seizure. Thus, the shabu seized by the NARCOM operatives which cannot legally be possessed by the accused under the law, can and must be retained by the government to be disposed of in accordance with law. (People vs. Che Chun Ting, G.R. Nos. 130568-69, March 21, 2000)

■ It does not necessarily follow that the property illegally seized will be returned immediately; it could remain in custodia legis [Alih v. Castro, G.R. No. L-69401, June 23, 1987; Roan vs. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687]. Thus, in People v. Estrada, G.R. No. 124461, June 26, 2000,  even as the search warrant was declared illegal and the medicines or drugs seized were shown to be genuine, their return was not ordered because the producer, manufacturer or seller did not have any permit or license to sell the same.

■ Be that as it may, considering that the two (2) dry seals and eight (8) of the rubber stamps have been certified to be counterfeit by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation, they may not be returned and are hereby declared confiscated in favor of the State to be disposed of according to law. Moreover, the various bankbooks and passports not belonging to appellant may not be ordered returned in the instant proceedings. The legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby, and the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties. (People vs Benny Go, G.R. No. 144639. September 12, 2003)