9 guidelines re consented search

The constitutional immunity against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right which may be waived. "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 2 of Article III of the Constitution)

In Caballes v. CA (424 Phil. 263, 285. 2002),  the Supreme Court laid down guidelines in determining whether the consent given by the accused may be regarded as consensual, mandating that the consent must be unequivocal, specific, and intelligently given, uncontaminated by any duress or coercion. Likewise, courts must consider the characteristics of the person giving consent, as well as the environment within which the consent is given, and take particular regard of the following:

[1] the age of the defendant;
[2] whether he was in a public or secluded location;
[3] whether he objected to the search or passively looked on;
[4] the education and intelligence of the defendant;
[5] the presence of coercive police procedures;
[6] the defendant's belief that no incriminating evidence will be found;
[7] the nature of the police questioning;
[8] the environment in which the questioning took place; and
[9] the possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person consenting. (Cited in G.R. No. 228170. December 4, 2017)