G.R. No. L-69803. January 30, 1987.
CYNTHIA D. NOLASCO, MILA AGUILAR-ROQUE and WILLIE C. TOLENTINO, petitioners, vs. HON. ERNANI CRUZ PAÑO, Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court of Quezon City; HON. ANTONIO P. SANTOS, Presiding Judge, Branch XLII Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City; HON. SERGIO F. APOSTOL, City Fiscal, Quezon City; HON. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, LT. GEN. FIDEL RAMOS and COL. JESUS ALTUNA, respondents.

FACTS

This case involves Motions for Partial Reconsideration of the Court’s Decision dated October 8, 1985. The original Decision annulled Search Warrant No. 80-84 for being a constitutionally infirm general warrant but allowed the Constabulary Security Group to retain the seized items for possible use in a separate military commission case against petitioner Mila Aguilar-Roque. The search warrant was executed on August 6, 1984, leading to the seizure of various documents and personal effects from the petitioners’ premises. Public respondents, in their Motion, argued the warrant was valid given the nature of rebellion, while petitioners contested the ruling that the warrantless search of Aguilar-Roque’s residence was valid as an incident to her arrest.
Following a change in national administration, the Court required the parties to update their positions. In their Compliance, petitioners maintained that both the arrest and the subsequent search were illegal, demanding the return of all seized properties. The Solicitor General, representing the public respondents, aligned with the dissenting opinion of then Justice Claudio Teehankee in the original decision. He offered no objection to declaring the search illegal and ordering the return of the seized items but did not concede the illegality of the arrest itself.

ISSUE

The primary issue for reconsideration was whether the warrantless search of petitioner Mila Aguilar-Roque’s dwelling could be justified as an incident to her lawful arrest, and consequently, whether all evidence seized must be excluded and returned under the constitutional exclusionary rule.

RULING

The Court granted petitioners’ Motion for Partial Reconsideration. It revised its earlier Decision to hold that the search and seizure were entirely illegal and ordered the unconditional return of all seized personalities to the petitioners. The legal logic rests on a strict application of the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures and the exclusionary rule under Section 3, Article IV of the 1973 Constitution (now Section 2, Article III of the 1987 Constitution ).
The Court definitively rejected the argument that the search of Aguilar-Roque’s home was a valid incident to her arrest. The arrest occurred at 11:30 AM aboard a public vehicle at the intersection of Mayon and P. Margal Streets, away from her residence at 239-B Mayon Street. A warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest is constitutionally permissible only of the person of the arrestee and the immediate vicinity of the arrest to seize weapons or evidence that might be destroyed. It does not extend to a search of the arrestee’s dwelling, which is a distinct and separate location. Therefore, the subsequent search of her home required a valid warrant, which was already declared void as a general warrant.
Crucially, the Court gave full effect to the exclusionary rule, which mandates that any evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures “shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.” This rule is designed to remove any incentive for law enforcement to disregard fundamental rights. Since the search warrant was null and void and the warrantless search of the dwelling was unjustified, all articles