P. 1
Search and Seizure Cases

Search and Seizure Cases

|Views: 39|Likes:
cases about searches and seizures
cases about searches and seizures

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Eloisa Katrina Madamba on Jun 26, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Section  2  –  Search  and  Seizures     Art  3,  Sec.  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.”     Art  3,  Sec.  3.   “(1)   The   privacy   of   communication   and   correspondence   shall   be   inviolable   except   upon   lawful   order   of   the  court,  or  when  public  safety  or  order  requires  otherwise  as  prescribed  by  law.   (2)   Any  evidence  obtained  in  violation  of  this  or  the  preceding  section  shall  be  inadmissible  for  any  purpose  in  any   proceeding.”   RULE  113,  RULES  OF  COURT     Section  5.   Arrest  without  warrant;   when  lawful.  —  A  peace  officer  or  a  private  person  may,  without  a  warrant,  arrest  a   person:     (a) When,   in   his   presence,   the   person   to   be   arrested   has   committed,   is   actually   committing,   or   is   attempting   to   commit  an  offense;   (b) When   an   offense   has   just   been   committed,   and   he   has   probable   cause   to   believe   based   on   personal   knowledge  of  facts  or  circumstances  that  the  person  to  be  arrested  has  committed  it;  and   (c) When  the  person  to  be  arrested  is  a  prisoner  who  has  escaped  from  a  penal  establishment  or  place  where   he   is   serving   final   judgment   or   is   temporarily   confined   while   his   case   is   pending,   or   has   escaped   while   being   transferred  from  one  confinement  to  another.     In  cases  falling  under  paragraph  (a)  and  (b)  above,  the  person  arrested  without  a  warrant  shall  be  forthwith  delivered  to   the  nearest  police  station  or  jail  and  shall  be  proceeded  against  in  accordance  with  section  7  of  Rule  112.         RULE  126,  RULES  OF  COURT     Section  2.   Court  where  application  for  search  warrant  shall  be  filed.  —  An  application  for  search  warrant  shall  be  filed   with  the  following:     a)  Any  court  within  whose  territorial  jurisdiction  a  crime  was  committed.   b)   For   compelling   reasons   stated   in   the   application,   any   court   within   the   judicial   region   where   the   crime   was   committed  if  the  place  of  the  commission  of  the  crime  is  known,  or  any  court  within  the  judicial  region  where  the   warrant  shall  be  enforced.     However,  if  the  criminal  action  has  already  been  filed,  the  application  shall  only  be  made  in  the  court  where  the  criminal   action  is  pending.       Section  7.   Right  to  break  door  or  window  to  effect  search.  —  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.       Section  12.  Delivery  of  property  and  inventory  thereof  to  court;  return  and  proceedings  thereon.     (a) The  officer  must  forthwith  deliver  the  property  seized  to  the  judge  who  issued  the  warrant,  together  with  a  true   inventory  thereof  duly  verified  under  oath.  

(b) Ten  (10)  days  after  issuance  of  the  search  warrant,  the  issuing  judge  shall  ascertain  if  the  return  has  been  made,   and   if   none,   shall   summon   the   person   to   whom   the   warrant   was   issued   and   require   him   to   explain   why   no   return   was   made.   If   the   return   has   been   made,   the   judge   shall   ascertain   whether   section   11   of   this   Rule   has   been  complained  with  and  shall  require  that  the  property  seized  be  delivered  to  him.  The  judge  shall  see  to  it   that  subsection  (a)  hereof  has  been  complied  with.   (c) The  return  on  the  search  warrant  shall  be  filed  and  kept  by  the  custodian  of  the  log  book  on  search  warrants   who  shall  enter  therein  the  date  of  the  return,  the  result,  and  other  actions  of  the  judge.     A  violation  of  this  section  shall  constitute  contempt  of  court.       PEOPLE  VS.  MARTI   [193  SCRA  57;  G.R.  NO.  81561;  18  JAN  1991]     Facts:       Accused-­‐appellant   went   to   a   forwarding   agency   to   send   four   packages   to   a   friend   in   Zurich.   Initially,   the   accused   was   asked   by   the   proprietress   if   the   packages   can   be   examined.   However,   he   refused.   Before   delivering   said   packages   to   the   Bureau   of   Customs   and   the   Bureau   of   Posts,   the   husband   of   the   proprietress   opened   said   boxes   for   final   inspection.   From   that   inspection,   included   in   the   standard   operating   procedure   and   out   of   curiosity,   he   took   several   grams   of   its   contents.     He  brought  a  letter  and  the  said  sample  to  the  National  Bureau  of  Investigation.  When  the  NBI  was  informed  that  the   rest   of   the   shipment   was   still   in   his   office,   three   agents   went   back   with   him.   In   their   presence,   the   husband   totally   opened  the  packages.  Afterwards,  the  NBI  took  custody  of  said  packages.  The  contents  ,  after  examination  by  forensic   chemists,  were  found  to  be  marijuana  flowering  tops.     The   appellant,   while   claiming   his   mail   at   the   Central   Post   Office,   was   invited   by   the   agents   for   questioning.   Later   on,   the   trial  court  found  him  guilty  of  violation  of  the  Dangerous  Drugs  Act.     Issue:   Whether  or  Not  the  items  admitted  in  the  searched  illegally  searched  and  seized.   Whether  or  Not  custodial  investigation  properly  applied.   Whether  or  Not  the  trial  court  not  give  credence  to  the  explanation  of  the  appellant  on  how  said  packages  came  to  his   possession.   Held:     No.  “The  case  at  bar  assumes  a  peculiar  character  since  the  evidence  sought  to  be  excluded  was  primarily  discovered   and   obtained   by   a   private   person,   acting   in   a   private   capacity   and   without   the   intervention   and   participation   of   State   authorities.   Under   the   circumstances,   can   accused/appellant   validly   claim   that   his   constitutional   right   against   unreasonable  searches  and  seizure  has  been  violated.  Stated  otherwise,  may  an  act  of  a  private  individual,  allegedly  in   violation  of  appellant's  constitutional  rights,  be  invoked  against  the  State.  In  the  absence  of  governmental  interference,   the  liberties  guaranteed  by  the  Constitution  cannot  be  invoked  against  the  State.  It  was  Mr.  Job  Reyes,  the  proprietor  of   the   forwarding   agency,   who   made   search/inspection   of   the   packages.   Said   inspection   was   reasonable   and   a   standard   operating  procedure  on  the  part  of  Mr.  Reyes  as  a  precautionary  measure  before  delivery  of  packages  to  the  Bureau  of   Customs   or   the   Bureau   of   Posts.   Second,   the   mere   presence   of   the   NBI   agents   did   not   convert   the   reasonable   search   effected  by  Reyes  into  a  warrantless  search  and  seizure  proscribed  by  the  Constitution.  Merely  to  observe  and  look  at   that  which  is  in  plain  sight  is  not  a  search.  Having  observed  that  which  is  open,  where  no  trespass  has  been  committed  in   aid  thereof,  is  not  search.”    

STONEHILL  vs  DIOKNO   FACTS:   Upon   application   of   the   officers   of   the   government   named   on   the   margin,   Respondents-­‐Prosecutors,   Respondents-­‐Judges   issued,   on   different   dates  a   total   of   42   search   warrants   against   the   petitioners  and/or   the   corporations  of  which  they  were  officers,  directed  to  the  any  peace  officer,  to  search  the  persons  above-­‐named  and/or   the  premises  of  their  offices,  warehouses  and/or  residences,  and  to  seize  and  take  possession  of  the  following  personal   property  to  wit:   Books   of   accounts,   financial   records,   vouchers,   correspondence,   receipts,   ledgers,   journals,   portfolios,   credit   journals,   typewriters,   and   other   documents   and/or   papers   showing   all   business   transactions   including   disbursements  receipts,  balance  sheets  and  profit  and  loss  statements  and  Bobbins  (cigarette  wrappers).   as  "the  subject  of  the  offense;  stolen  or  embezzled  and  proceeds  or  fruits  of  the  offense,"  or  "used  or  intended  to  be  used   as  the  means  of  committing  the  offense,"  which  is  described  in  the  applications  adverted  to  above  as  "violation  of  Central   Bank  Laws,  Tariff  and  Customs  Laws,  Internal  Revenue  (Code)  and  the  Revised  Penal  Code."   On   March   20,   1962,   said   petitioners   filed   with   the   Supreme   Court   this   original   action   for  certiorari,   prohibition,  mandamus  and   injunction,   and   prayed   that,   pending   final   disposition   of   the   present   case,   a   writ   of   preliminary   injunction   be   issued   restraining   Respondents-­‐Prosecutors,   their   agents   and   /or   representatives   from   using   the  effects  seized  as  aforementioned  or  any  copies  thereof,  in  the  deportation  cases  already  adverted  to,  and  that,  in  due   course,  thereafter,  decision  be  rendered  quashing  the  contested  search  warrants  and  declaring  the  same  null  and  void,   and   commanding   the   respondents,   their   agents   or   representatives   to   return   to   petitioners   herein,   in   accordance   with   Section   3,   Rule   67,   of   the   Rules   of   Court,   the   documents,   papers,   things   and   cash   moneys   seized   or   confiscated   under   the   search   warrants   in   question;   alleging   that   the   aforementioned   search   warrants   are   null   and   void,   as   contravening   the   Constitution  and  the  Rules  of  Court  because  (1)  they  do  not  describe  with  particularity  the  documents,  books  and  things   to  be  seized;  (2)  cash  money,  not  mentioned  in  the  warrants,  were  actually  seized;  (3)  the  warrants  were  issued  to  fish   evidence  against  the  aforementioned  petitioners  in  deportation  cases  filed  against  them;  (4)  the  searches  and  seizures   were  made  in  an  illegal  manner;  and  (5)  the  documents,  papers  and  cash  money  seized  were  not  delivered  to  the  courts   that  issued  the  warrants,  to  be  disposed  of  in  accordance  with  law.   Respondents-­‐prosecutors   answered  (1)   that   the   contested   search   warrants   are   valid   and   have   been   issued   in   accordance  with  law;  (2)  that  the  defects  of  said  warrants,  if  any,  were  cured  by  petitioners'  consent;  and  (3)  that,  in  any   event,  the  effects  seized  are  admissible  in  evidence  against  herein  petitioners,  regardless  of  the  alleged  illegality  of  the   aforementioned  searches  and  seizures.   On   March   22,   1962,   this   Court   issued   the   writ   of   preliminary   injunction   prayed   for   in   the   petition.   But   in   a   resolution   dated   June   29,   1962,   the   writ   was   partially   lifted   or   dissolved,   insofar   as   the   papers,   documents   and   things   seized  from  the   offices   of   the   corporations   (referred  in  the  case  as   1st  group  of   documents,   papers,   and   things   seized   under   the   alleged   authority   of   the   warrants   in   question)   above   mentioned   are   concerned;   but,   the   injunction   was   maintained  as  regards  the  papers,  documents  and  things  found  and  seized  in  the   residences  of  petitioners   (referred  in   the  case  as  2nd  group).   As  regards  the  first  group,   the  Court  held  that  the  petitioners  have  no  cause  of  action  to  assail  the  legality  of  the   contested   warrants   and   of   the   seizures   made   in   pursuance   thereof,   because   said   corporations   have   their   respective   personalities,  separate  and  distinct  from  the  personality  of  the  petitioners,  regardless  of  the  amount  of  shares  of  stock  or   of  the  interest  of  each  of  them  in  said  corporations,  and  whatever  the  offices  they  hold  therein  may  be.  The  court  further   stated   that   the   legality   of   a   seizure   can   be   contested  only  by   the   party   whose   rights   have   been   impaired   thereby,  and   that  the  objection  to  an  unlawful  search  and  seizure  is  purely  personal  and  cannot  be  availed  of  by  third  parties   and  the   petitioners   therefore   may   not   validly   object   to   the   use   in   evidence   against   them   of   the   documents,   papers   and   things   seized  from  the  offices  and  premises  of  the  corporations  adverted  to  above,  since  the  right  to  object  to  the  admission  of   said   papers   in   evidence   belongs   exclusively  to   the   corporations,   to   whom   the   seized   effects   belong,   and   may   not   be   invoked  by  the  corporate  officers  in  proceedings  against  them  in  their  individual  capacity.   With   respect   to   the   2nd   group,   the   resolution   of   June   29,   1962,   lifted   the   writ   of   preliminary   injunction   previously   issued   by   this   Court,   thereby,   in   effect,   restraining   the   Respondents-­‐Prosecutors   from   using   them   in   evidence   against   the   petitioners.  

ISSUE/S:   1. Whether  the  search  warrants  in  question,  and  the  searches  and  seizures  made  under  the  authority  thereof,  are   valid  or  not.   2. If  the  answer  to  the  preceding  question  is  in  the  negative,  whether  said  documents,  papers  and  things  may  be   used  in  evidence  against  petitioners.   HELD:   1. Petitioners  maintain  that  the  aforementioned  search  warrants  are  in  the  nature  of  general  warrants  and  that   accordingly,   the   seizures   effected   upon   the   authority   thereof   are   null   and   void.   In   this   connection,   the   Constitution  provides:   The  right  of  the  people  to  be  secure  in  their  persons,  houses,  papers,  and  effects  against  unreasonable  searches   and   seizures   shall   not   be   violated,   and   no   warrants   shall   issue   but   upon   probable   cause,   to   be   determined   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.   Two   points   must   be   stressed   in   connection   with   this   constitutional   mandate,   namely:   (1)   that   no   warrant   shall   issue   but  upon   probable  cause,   to   be   determined   by   the   judge   in   the   manner   set   forth   in   said   provision;   and   (2)   that   the   warrant  shall  particularly  describe  the  things  to  be  seized.   However,   none   of   the   said   requirements   were   complied   with.   The   warrant   only   stated   that   the   natural   and   juridical   person   therein   named   had   committed   a   "violation   of   Central   Bank   Laws,   Tariff   and   Customs   Laws,   Internal   Revenue   (Code)  and  Revised  Penal  Code."  Hence,  the  accusations  were  abstract,  no  specific  violation  stated,  and  the  judges  who   issued  such  warrants  would  have  not  found  any  probable  cause.     Upholding   the   sanctity   of   the   domicile   and   the   privacy   of   communication   and   correspondence;   adopting   the   Revised   Rules   of   Court   provision   which   states   that   "a   search   warrant   shall   not   issue   but   upon   probable   cause  in   connection  with  one  specific  offense"  and  "no  search  warrant  shall  issue  for  more  than  one  specific  offense;"  the  court   invalidated   the   said   search   warrants   –   for   being   “general”   ones   –   and   the   searches   and   seizures   made   under   the   authority  thereof.   2. Furthermore,   reiterating   previous   jurisprudence   on   evidence   illegally   acquired   through   faulty   search   warrants  and  searches  and  seizures  authorized  under  such  warrants;  and  explaining  the  exclusion  doctrine,   where   evidence   obtained   unlawfully   acquired   cannot   be   admitted   as   evidence   against   the   accused;   the   court  did  not  admit  said  documents,  papers  and  things  be  used  in  evidence  against  petitioners.   We  hold,  therefore,  that  the  doctrine  adopted  in  the  Moncado  case  must  be,  as  it  is  hereby,  abandoned;  that  the   warrants  for  the  search  of  three  (3)  residences  of  herein  petitioners,  as  specified  in  the  Resolution  of  June  29,  1962,  are   null  and  void;  that  the  searches  and  seizures  therein  made  are  illegal;  that  the  writ  of  preliminary  injunction  heretofore   issued,  in  connection  with  the  documents,  papers  and  other  effects  thus  seized  in  said  residences  of  herein  petitioners  is   hereby  made  permanent;  that  the  writs  prayed  for  are  granted,  insofar  as  the  documents,  papers  and  other  effects  so   seized   in   the   aforementioned   residences   are   concerned;   that   the   aforementioned   motion   for   Reconsideration   and   Amendment  should  be,  as  it  is  hereby,  denied;  and  that  the  petition  herein  is  dismissed  and  the  writs  prayed  for  denied,   as   regards   the   documents,   papers   and   other   effects   seized   in   the   twenty-­‐nine   (29)   places,   offices   and   other   premises   enumerated  in  the  same  Resolution,  without  special  pronouncement  as  to  costs.   It  is  so  ordered.      

 14  NOV  1988]     Facts:     In  these  consolidated  cases.  Mantaring  vs.   the   administrative   complaint  was  filed  before  the  involvement  of  the  judge  in  the  criminal  case  against  Mantaring.  RTJ-­‐93-­‐964.  and  (2)  whether  or  not  the  constitutional   rights   of   Beltran   were   violated   when   respondent   RTC   judge   issued   a   warrant   for   his   arrest   without   personally   examining   the   complainant   and   the   witnesses.   For   the   judge's   failure   to   inhibit.  Judge  Manuel  A.   In   the   case   at   hand.  254  SCRA  158     Facts:   Mantaring   filed   an   administrative   complaint   against   Judge   Roman   charging   the   latter   of   conduct   unbecoming   of   members   of   the   judiciary.   The   Judge   alleges  that  the  warrant  was  issued  against  Gamo  and  it  just  so  happened  that  the  place  where  the  illegal  firearms  were   seized  was  owned  by  Mantaring.  the  Secretary  of  Justice  denied  petitioners'  motion  for  reconsideration   and   upheld   the   resolution   of   the   Undersecretary   of   Justice   sustaining   the   City   Fiscal's   finding   of   a   prima   facie   case   against   petitioners.   affirmed   the   resolution   of   the   Secretary  of  Justice  on  May  2.  82585.   the   President.  the  administrative   complaint   was   filed   during   the   pendency   of   the   criminal   case.  three  principal  issues  were  raised:  (1)  whether  or  not  petitioners  were  denied  due  process   when  informations  for  libel  were  filed  against  them  although  the  finding  of  the  existence  of  a   prima  facie  case  was  still   under  review  by  the  Secretary  of  Justice  and.R.   the   judge   should   have   inhibited   himself.   however.  The  motion  for  reconsideration  was  denied  by  the  Executive  Secretary  on  May  16.   A   second   motion   for   reconsideration   filed   by   petitioner   Beltran   was   denied   by   the   Secretary   of   Justice   on   April   7.  Jr.   On   appeal.   he   is   reprimanded   and   warned   that   commission   of   the   same   act   shall   be   severely   dealt   with   in   the   future.  by  the  President.  28.   to   determine   probable   cause.  NO.Leovigildo  U.  1988.   Judge   Roman   issued   a   warrant   of   arrest   against   Mantaring   and   his   son.  hence.         SOLIVEN  VS.  Al   M.  G.   Mantaring   now   comes   before   this   court   alleging   that   it   was   improper   for   the   Judge   to   take   cognizance  of  the  application  of  the  arrest  warrant.  subsequently.  On  March  30.   petitioners'   contention   that   they   have   been   denied   the   administrative   remedies   available  under  the  law  has  lost  factual  support.   Mantaring   claims   that   the   judge   issued   the   warrant  of  arrest  as  a  form  of  revenge  against  Mantaring  and  his  son  for  filing  the  administrative  case.     Issue:    Whether   or   not   the   judge   should   have   inhibited   himself   from   taking   cognizance   of   the   application   for   the   warrant  of  arrest.  Feb.  Mantaringand  his  son  were  arrested  for  they  were  in  constructive  possession  of   the   illegal   firearms.  However.   Subsequent   events   have   rendered   the   first   issue  moot  and  academic.   With   these   developments.     Issue:         .  the  factual  milieu  of  these  cases  is  different  from  the  case  at  hand.   Thereafter.   if   any.  Roman.  et.   This   circumstance   should   have   underscored   for   the   judge   the   need   of   steering   clear   of   the   case   because  he  might  be  perceived  to  be  suceptible  to  bias  and  partiality.  1996.  the  Judge  should  have  inhibited  himself  for   there   was   a   pending   administrative   case   which   involved   him   and   Mantaring.   1988.   It   is   true   that   the   court   had   consistently   held   that   mere   filing   of   an   administrative   complaint   against   judge   does   not   constitute   a   ground   for   the   disqualification   of   the   judge.   1988.     Held:   Yes.  MAKASIAR   [167  SCRA  393.  It  cannot  be  otherwise   concluded  that  a  spirit  of  revenge  against  Mantaring  for  having  filed  the  administrative  complaint  in  this  case  dictated   the   judge’s   action.   through   the   Executive   Secretary.  1988.  No.  According  to  Mantaring.  In  those  cases.

 All  that  is  required  is  that  the  respondent  be  given  the  opportunity  to  submit  counter-­‐affidavits  if  he  is  so   minded.  issue  a  warrant  of  arrest.   the   writs   of   certiorari   and   prohibition   prayed   for   cannot   issue.   Hence.  if  any.  he  filed  a  "Motion  to  Declare  Proceedings  Closed.  Nos.  raised  by  petitioner  Beltran.  subsequently.  Sec.  1988  is  LIFTED.       Sound   policy   dictates   this   procedure."   in  effect  waiving  his  right  to  refute  the  complaint  by  filing  counter-­‐affidavits.  or  (2)  if  on  the  basis   thereof   he   finds   no   probable   cause.  and  no   search  warrant  or  warrant  of  arrest  shall  issue  except  upon  probable  cause  to  be  determined  personally   by  the  judge  after  examination  nder  oath  or  affirmation  of  the  complainant  and  the  witnesses  he  may   produce.   he   shall:   (1)   personally   evaluate   the   report   and   the   supporting   documents   submitted   by   the   fiscal  regarding  the  existence  of  probable  cause  and.  calls  for  an  interpretation  of  the  constitutional  provision  on  the  issuance   of  warrants  of  arrest.  Due  process  of  law  does  not  require  that   the   respondent   in   a   criminal   case   actually   file   his   counter-­‐affidavits   before   the   preliminary   investigation   is   deemed   completed.  through  their  separate  acts.  the  Court  Resolved  to  DISMISS  the  petitions  in  G.   with   regard   to   the   issuance   of   the   warrants   of   arrest.  III.  houses.  finding  no  grave  abuse  of  discretion  amounting  to  excess  or  lack  of  jurisdiction  on  the  part  of  the  public   respondents.   This   is   not   an   accurate   interpretation.   Thus.  2.  R.  It   has   not   been   shown   that   respondent   judge   has   deviated   from   the   prescribed   procedure.   he   may   disregard   the   fiscal's   report   and   require   the   submission   of   supporting   affidavits  of  witnesses  to  aid  him  in  arriving  at  a  conclusion  as  to  the  existence  of  probable  cause.         The  second  issue.  to  determine  probable  cause     Held:     With   respect   to   petitioner   Beltran.  gravely  abused   their   discretion   as   to   amount   to   lack   of   jurisdiction.       Whether  or  Not  the  constitutional  rights  of  Beltran  were  violated  when  respondent  RTC  judge  issued  a  warrant  for  his   arrest  without  personally  examining  the  complainant  and  the  witnesses.  The  petitions  fail  to  establish  that  public  respondents.  papers  and  effects  against   unreasonable  searches  and  seizures  of  whatever  nature  and  for  any  purpose  shall  be  inviolable.Whether  or  Not  petitioners  were  denied  due  process  when  informations  for  libel  were  filed  against  them  although  the   finding  of  the  existence  of  a  prima  facie  case  was  still  under  review  by  the  Secretary  of  Justice  and.   the   allegation   of   denial   of   due   process   of   law   in   the   preliminary   investigation   is   negated  by  the  fact  that  instead  of  submitting  his  counter-­‐  affidavits.  82585.  82827  and  83979.   otherwise   judges   would   be   unduly   laden   with   the   preliminary   examination   and   investigation  of  criminal  complaints  instead  of  concentrating  on  hearing  and  deciding  cases  filed  before  their  courts.       The   addition   of   the   word   "personally"   after   the   word   "determined"   and   the   deletion   of   the   grant   of   authority   by   the   1973   Constitution   to   issue   warrants   to   "other   responsible   officers   as   may   be   authorized   by   law.  The  Order  to  maintain   the   status   quo   contained   in   the   Resolution   of   the   Court   en   banc   dated   April   7.   a   finding   of   grave   abuse   of   discretion   amounting   to   lack   or   excess   of   jurisdiction   cannot  be  sustained.     .   the   judge   is   not   required   to   personally   examine   the   complainant   and   his   witnesses.  The  right  of  the  people  to  be  secure  in  their  persons.       What  the  Constitution  underscores  is  the  exclusive  and  personal  responsibility  of  the  issuing  judge  to  satisfy  himself  of   the   existence   of   probable   cause.     WHEREFORE.  and  particularly  describing  the  place  to  be  searched  and  the  persons  or  things  to  be  seized.   Following   established   doctrine   and   procedure.  The  pertinent  provision  reads:       Art.   1988   and   reiterated   in   the   Resolution   dated  April  26.  by  the   President."   has   apparently   convinced  petitioner  Beltran  that  the  Constitution  now  requires  the  judge  to  personally  examine  the  complainant  and   his   witnesses   in   his   determination   of   probable   cause   for   the   issuance   of   warrants   of   arrest.   In   satisfying   himself   of   the   existence   of   probable   cause   for   the   issuance   of   a   warrant   of   arrest.  on  the  basis  thereof.

 crime.   the  officers  seized  money  belonging  to  Antonieta  Silva  in  the  amount  of  P1.  lockers.  such  as  a  legal  order  of  deportation.  Tama  Silva  has  the   possession  and  control  of  marijuana  dried  leaves.  Petitioner  on  the   other  hand  assails  the  constitutionality  of  Section  37(a)  of  the  Immigration  Act  of  1940  which  allows  the  Commissioner  of   Immigration  to  issue  a  warrant  of  arrest  for  deportation  proceedings.  Judge  Nickarter  Ontal.  cigarettes..  In  the  course  of  the  search.  Search   Warrant  No.  cabinets.  The  warrant  authorizes  Sgt.  The  questions  were  already  mimeographed  and  all   the  witness  had  to  do  was  fill  in  their  answers  on  the  blanks  provided.  China  and  her  minor   son  Fu  Yan  Fun.       The  officers  who  implemented  the  search  warrant  clearly  abused  their  authority  when  they  seized  the  money  of   Antonieta  Silva.  in  pursuance   of  a  valid  legislation.     Issue:  WON  petitioner's  contention  is  correct.  a  Filipino.  is  ordered  by  the  commissioner  of  immigration  to  leave  the  country  on  or  before   September  10.  Section  1(3).  chief  of  the  PC  Narcom  Detachment  in  Dumaguete  City  filed  an  "application  for  search  warrant"  and   "Deposition  of  witness"  against  petitioner  Nicomedes  Silva  and  Martin  Silva.  cigarette  and  joint.  Such   questions  are  not  sufficiently  searching  to  establish  probable  cause.40.  Such  warrant  states  that  there  is  a  probable  cause  to  believe  that  Mr.  The  warrant  did  not  indicate  the  seizure  of  money  but  only  for  marijuana  leaves.  1  is  declared  null  and  void.  a  Chinese  citizen  born  in  Fukien.     Held:  Search  Warrant  No.  Chan  Sau  Wah.     Contention:  The  Solicitor  General.  The  questions  asked  were  leading  as  they  are  answerable  by  mere  yes  or  no.     Held:  No.  Tama  Silva  at  the  residence  of  his  father  Comedes  Silva  and  to  open   aparadors.  or  a  convict  of.  The  determination  of  the  propriety  of  deportation  is  not  a  prosecution  for.  Vivo     Facts:  Petitioner.1  is  invalid.  he  will  issue  a  warrant  for  their  arrest.  issued  by  the  commissioner  of  Immigration.etc.   Silva  v  Presiding  Judge     Facts:  Sgt.  Judge  Ontal  is  guilty  of  grave  abuse  of  discretion   when  he  rejected  the  motion  of  Antonieta  Silva  seeking  the  return  of  her  money.  nor  is  it  a   punishment.  WON  the  officers  abused  their  authority  in  seizing  the  money  of   Antonieta  Silva.  1  is  invalid  due  to  the  failure  of  the  judge  to  examine  the  witness  in  the  form   of  searching  questions  and  answers.  1962  with  a  warning  that  upon  failure  to  do  so.  her  minor  son  by  first  marriage.Morano  v.1  pursuant  to  the  said  applications  for  violation  of  RA  6425   Dangerous  Drugs  ACT  of  1972.       Issue:  Whether  or  Not  Search  Warrant  No.231.  brought  this  action  since  his  wife.  Villamor  to  make  an   immediate  search  at  any  time  of  the  room  of  Mr.  Petitioner  filed  a  motion  to  quash   Search  Warrant  No.  not  as  a  measure  to  carry  out  a   valid  decision  by  a  competent  official.   .  Article  III  of  the  Constitution  contemplates  an  order  of  arrest  in  the  exercise  of  judicial  power  as  a  step   preliminary  or  incidental  to  prosecution  or  proceedings  for  a  given  offense  or  administrative  action.1  on  the  ground  that  1)  it  was  issued  on  the  sole  basis  of  mimeographed  2)  the  judge  failed  to   personally  examine  the  complainant  and  witness  by  searching  questions  and  answers.  then  the  presiding   judge  of  RTC  of  Dumaguete  issued  Search  Warrant  No.  cartons  and  containers  to  look  for  said  illegal  drugs.  on  behalf  of  respondent  contends  that  Chan  Sau  Wah  is  not  a  Filipino  Citizen.  Villamor.

 in  writing  and  under  oath  the  complainant  and  any  witness  he  may  produce  the   facts  personally  known  to  them  and  attach  to  the  record  their  sworn  statements  together  with  their  affidavits.  Petition  for   bail  was  filed  11March  1988  but  was  not  granted  by  the  Commissioner  of  Immigration.  another  charged  not  for  pedophile  but  working  with  NO  VISA.  On  4  March1988.  Richard  Sherman  was  found  with  two  naked  boys  inside  his  room.69  of  Revised  Administrative  Code.  Petitioners  are  the  following:  American  nationals  Andrew  Harvey.  The  “Operation  Report”  read  that  Andrew  Harvey  was  found  together  with   two  young  boys.  spiritual  and  social  well  being  of  the  youth.       Warrants  of  Arrest  were  issued  7March1988  against  petitioners  for  violation  of  Sec37.  4  April1988  Petitioners  filed   a  petition  for  Writ  of  Habeas  Corpus.  They  were  apprehended  17  February1988  after  close   surveillance  for  3  month  of  the  CID  in  Pagsanjan.   ***  Sec  4  Rule  126  Rules  of  Court     Examination  of  the  complainant.  Dutch  Citizen  Adriaan  Van  Den  Elshout.  While  Van  Den  Elshout  in  the  “after   Mission  Report”  read  that  two  children  of  ages  14  and  16  has  been  under  his  care  and  subjects  confirmed  being  live-­‐in   for  some  time  now.  record  -­‐the  judge  before  issuing  the  warrant.R.  the  3  petitioners  chose  to   face  deportation  proceedings.  Posters  and  other  literature  advertising  the  child   prostitutes  were  also  found.  28  June  1988     FACTS:  This  is  a  petition  for  Habeas  Corpus.       Seized  during  the  petitioner’s  apprehension  were  rolls  of  photo  negatives  and  photos  of  suspected  child  prostitutes   shown  in  scandalous  poses  as  well  as  boys  and  girls  engaged  in  sex.  45  and  46  of  Immigration  Act  and   sec69  of  Revised  Administrative  Code.  moral.  17  of  the  arrested  aliens  opted  for  self-­‐deportation.  One   released  for  lack  of  evidence.  All  reside  at  Pagsanjan  Laguna  respondent  Commissioner   Miriam  Defensor  Santiago  issued  Mission  Orders  to  the  Commission  of  Immigration  and  Deportation  (CID)  to   apprehended  petitioners  at  their  residences.       Petitioners  were  among  the  22  suspected  alien  pedophiles.   (3)  Whether  or  Not  the  writ  of  Habeas  Corpus  may  be  granted  to  petitioners.  G.  Laguna.       Harvey  v.  82544.  personally  examine  in  the  form   of  searching  questions  and  answers.  The  court  heard  the  case  on  oral  argument  on  20  April  1988.         ISSUES:       (1)  Whether  or  Not  the  Commissioner  has  the  power  to  arrest  and  detain  petitioners  pending  determination  of   existence  of  probable  cause.         HELD:  While  pedophilia  is  not  a  crime  under  the  Revised  Penal  Code.   (2)  Whether  or  Not  there  was  unreasonable  searches  and  seizures  by  CID  agents.  Santiago   162  SCRA  840.  NO.  58.  52  and   Jonh  Sherman  72.  Trial  by  the  Board  of  Special  Inquiry  III  commenced  the  same  date.  deportation  proceedings  were  instituted  against  aliens  for  being   undesirable  aliens  under  Sec.  it  violates  the  declared  policy  of  the  state  to   promote  and  protect  the  physical.  The  arrest  of  petitioners  was  based   .

 therefore   the  articles  are  admissible  evidences  (Rule  126.  It  a  police   measure  against  the  undesirable  aliens  whose  continued  presence  in  the  country  is  found  to  be  injurious  to  the  public   good  and  tranquility  of  the  people.  The  articles  were  seized  as  an  incident  to  a  lawful  arrest.       The  deportation  charges  instituted  by  the  Commissioner  of  Immigration  are  in  accordance  with  Sec37  (a)  of  the   Philippine  Immigration  Act  of  1940  in  relation  to  sec69  of  the  Revised  Administrative  code.  the  power  to  deport  aliens  is  an  act  of  the  State  and  done  under  the  authority  of  the  sovereign  power.  3.  at  anytime  of  the  day  or  night.  Tayabas.   be   declared   illegal   and   set   aside.  although  such  confinement  was  illegal  at  the  beginning.       Lastly.  several  agents  of  the  Anti-­‐Usury  Board   entered  the  petitioner's  store  and  residence  at  7  o'clock  of  the  night  of  June  4.  presiding  judge  of  CFI   of   Tayabas.  CFI     FACTS:   The  petitioner  asks  that  the  warrant  of  issued  by  the  Court  of  First  Instance  of  Tayabas.  A  fair  hearing  must  also  be  conducted  with   assistance  of  a  counsel  if  desired.  the  search  done  was  incidental  to  the  arrest.  1.  Deportation   proceedings  are  administrative  in  character  and  never  construed  as  a  punishment  but  a  preventive  measure.  Section12  of  Rules  on  Criminal  Procedure).     The   search   for   and   a   seizure   of   said   articles   were   made   with   the   opposition   of   the   petitioner   who   stated   his   protest   below  the  inventories  on  the  ground  that  the  agents  seized  even  the  originals  of  the  documents.  The  existence  of  probable  cause  justified  the   arrest  and  seizure  of  articles  linked  to  the  offense.  1936.   receipts.       The  rule  that  search  and  seizures  must  be  supported  by  a  valid  warrant  of  arrest  is  not  an  absolute  rule.  Therefore.     .)  Search  is  incidental  to  the  arrest.   Tayabas   documents.       The  filing  of  the  petitioners  for  bail  is  considered  as  a  waiver  of  any  irregularity  attending  their  arrest  and  estops  them   from  questioning  its  validity.  1936  and  seized  and  took  possession  of   various  articles  belonging  to  the  petitioner.  the  chief  of  the  secret  service  of  the  Anti-­‐Usury  Board  presented  to  Judge  David.   The  seized  articles  have  not  been  brought  immediately  to  the  presiding  judge.   lists.  In  view  of  the  foregoing.  There  are  at   least  three  exceptions  to  this  rule.   ordering   the   search   of   the   petitioners   house   at   any   time   of   the   day   or   night.  Upon  this  questioned  affidavit.  ordering  the  search  of  his  house   and  the  seizure.  Furthermore.  the  deportation  charges  and  the  hearing  presently  conducted  by  the  Board  of   Special  Inquiry  made  their  detention  legal.)  Seizure  of   evidence  in  plain  view.)  Search  in  a  moving  vehicle.  as  well  as  the  order  of  a  later  date.  It  is  a  fundamental  rule  that  habeas  corpus  will  not  be  granted  when   confinement  is  or  has  become  legal.  the  judge  issued  the  search   warrant.  documents.  of  certain  accounting  books.     In  his  oath  the  chief  of  the  secret  service  did  not  swear  to  the  truth  of  his  statements  upon  his  knowledge  of  the  facts   but  the  information  received  by  him  from  a  reliable  person.     ALVAREZ  v.  2.  Section  37  (a)  provides  that   aliens  shall  be  arrested  and  deported  upon  warrant  of  the  Commissioner  of  Immigration  and  Deportation  after  a   determination  by  the  Board  of  Commissioners  of  the  existence  of  a  ground  for  deportation  against  them.   it  need  not  be  conducted  strictly  in  accordance  with  ordinary  Court  proceedings.   the   seizure   of   the   books   and   documents  and  the  immediate  delivery  of  such  to  him  (judge).   On  June  3.  What  is  essential  is  that  there  should   be  a  specific  charge  against  the  alien  intended  to  be  arrested  and  deported.   the   petitioner   is   keeping   in   his   house   in   Infanta.   alleging   that   according   to   reliable   information.  authorizing  the  agents  of  the  Anti-­‐Usury   board   to   retain   the   articles   seized.on  the  probable  cause  determined  after  close  surveillance  of  3  months.  and  papers  belonging  to  him  in   his  residence  situated  in  Infanta.  With  said  warrant.   and   prays   that   all   the   articles   in   question   be   returned  to  him.   chits   and   other   papers   used   by   him   in   connection   with   his   activities   as   a   money   lender   charging  usurious  rates  of  interest  in  violation  of  the  law.

  relied   exclusively   upon   the   affidavit   made   by   agent   Mariano   G.   It  appears  that  the  affidavit.  if  the  affidavit  of  the  applicant  or  complainant   is  sufficient.  58  provide  that  the  affidavit  to  be  presented.)  What  is  the  nature  of  searches  and  seizures  as  contemplated  in  the  law?   2.  Therefore.   the   rights  secured  by  them.   it   is   hereby   held   that   the   search   warrant   in   question   and   the   subsequent   seizure   of   the   books.  Section  1.  and  directed  to  a  peace  officer.   “A   search   warrant   shall   not   issue   except   for   probable   cause   and   upon   application   supported   by   oath   particularly   describing   the   place   to   be   searched   and   the   person   or   thing   to   be   seized.ISSUES:   1.  is  insufficient  and  fatally  defective   by   reason   of   the   manner   in   which   the   oath   was   made.  It  is  contended  that  the  search  warrant  cannot  be  issued  unless  it  be  supported  by  affidavits  made  by  the  applicant   and  the  witnesses  to  be  presented  necessity  by  him.)  Whether  or  not  the  search  warrant  must  contain  a  particular  description  of  the  place  and  the  thing  to  be  seized?   6.   2.  No.   58   provides   that   it   is   of   imperative   necessity   to   take   the   deposition   of   the   witnesses   to   be   presented   by   the   applicant   or   complainant   in   addition   to   the   affidavit  of  the  latter.   The   petitioner   alleged   as   another   ground   for   the   declaration   of   the   illegality   of   the   search   warrant   and   the   cancellation  thereof.  the  fact  that  it  authorized  its  execution  at  night.  The  purpose  of  both  in  requiring  the  presentation  of  depositions  is  nothing  more  than  to  satisfy   the  committing  magistrate  of  the  existence  of  probable  cause.   Almeda   and   that   he   did   not   require   nor   take   the   deposition   of   any   other   witness.  which  shall  serve  as   the   basis   for   determining   whether   probable   cause   exist   and   whether   the   warrant   should   be   issued.  Section  101  of  General  Orders.)  What  is  required  of  the  oath  in  the  issuance  of  search  warrant?   3.  It  is  the  practice  in  this  jurisdiction  to  attach  the  affidavit  of  at  least   the  applicant  or  complainant  to  the  application.   documents   and   other   papers   are   illegal   and   do   not   in   any   way   warrant  the  deprivation  to  which  the  petitioner  was  subjected.   No.  the  judge  may  dispense  with  that  of  other  witnesses.   issued   in   the   name   of   the   People   of   the   Philippine   Islands.  One  of  the  grounds  alleged  by  the  petitioner  in  support  of  his  contention  that  the  warrant  was  issued  illegally  is  the   lack  of  an  adequate  description  of  the  books  and  documents  to  be  seized.  As  we  have  declared  the  affidavits  insufficient  and  the  warrant  issued  exclusively  upon   it  illegal.  and  section  97  of  General  Orders.     3.   to   prevent   stealthy   encroachment   upon.   These   provisions   are   mandatory   and  must  be  strictly  complied  with.  No.)  Whether  or  not  the  seizure  of  evidence  to  use  in  an  investigation  is  constitutional?     HELD:   1.              A   search   warrant   is   an   order   in   writing.  58  authorizes   that  the  search  be  made  at  night  when  it  is  positively  asserted  in  the  affidavits  that  the  property  is  on  the  person  or  in   the  place  ordered  to  be  searched.   signed   by   a   judge  or  a  justice  of  the  peace.  commanding  him  to  search  for  personal  property  and   bring  it  before  the  court.  paragraphs  3.  As  the  protection  of  the  citizen  and  the  maintenance  of  his  constitutional  right  is  one  of  the   highest   duties   and   privileges   of   the   court.  our  conclusion  is  that  the  contention  is  equally  well  founded  and  that  the  search  could  not  legally  be  made  at   night.)  Whether  or  not  the  search  warrant  could  be  serve  at  night?   5.  which  served  as  the  exclusive  basis  of  the  search  warrant.   and   therefore.   or   gradual   depreciation   on.  It  is  admitted  that  the  judge  who  issued  the  search  warrant  in  this  case.)  What  is  the  purpose  of  the  deposition  of  other  witnesses  in  addition  to  the  affidavit?   4.   these   constitutional   guaranties   should   be   given   a   liberal   construction   or   a   strict   construction   in   favor   of   the   individual.   .   Neither   the   Constitution   nor   General   Orders.     5.  of  Article  III  of  the   Constitution.   4.”    There   should   be   not   only   probable   cause   before   the   issuance   of   a   search   warrant   but   that   the   search   warrant   must   be   base   upon   an   application   supported   by   oath  of  the  applicant  and  the  witness  he  may  produce.   The  true  test  of  sufficiency  of  an  affidavit  to  warrant  issuance  of  a  search  warrant  is  whether  it  has  been  drawn  in  such  a   manner  that  perjury  could  be  charged  thereon  and  affiant  be  held  liable  for  damages  caused.   must   contain   a   particular   description   of   the   place   to   be   searched   and   the   person   or   thing   to   be   seized.

R.it  must  be  under  oath  and  must  be  in  writing.   Petitioner  thereafter  filed  a  motion  to  quash  and  annul  the  search  warrant  and  for  the  return  of  the  articles  seized.   Respondent  Judge  denied  the  motion  stating  that  the  Court  had  made  a  thorough  investigation  and  examination  under   oath  of  Bernardo  Golez  and  Reynaldo  Mayote.  respondent  Judge  replied.  and  that  the  co urt  had  made  a  certification  to  that  effect  and  the  rule  does  not  specify  when  the  pertinent  documents  are  to  be  attache d  to  the  records  of  the  case.  the  complaint  alleging  that  he  took  and  arranged  bets  onthe  ja i  alai  game  by  selling  Masiao  tickets  without  authority  from  the  Phil.  is  unconstitutional  because  it  makes  the  warrant  unreasonable.  The  seizure  of  books  and  documents  by  means   of  a  search  warrant.   In  issuing  a  search  warrant.  No.  for  the  purpose  of  using  them  as  evidence  in  a  criminal  case  against  the  person  in  whose  possession   they  were  found.   Rule126:  the  judge  must.  She  claims  that  in  order  to  abate  the  proliferation  of  the  Masiao  lottery.  for  being  violative  of  the  constitu tuion.   6.  The  last  ground  alleged  by  the  petitioner.   Mere  affidavits  are  not  sufficient  in  issuing  a  warrant.     People  vs.   Issue:  WON  the  absenceof  certified  depositions  would  render  the  search  warrant  illegal   Held:  yes.  the  search  warrant  and  other  pertinent  papers  connected  with  its  issuance  could  not  be  f ound  from  the  records  of  the  case.  Jai  alai  and  amusement  corp.  The  written  deposition  is  necessary  in  order  that  the  Judge  may  properly  de termine  the  existence  of  probable  cause.  in  support  of  his  claim  that  the  search  warrant  was  obtained  illegally.  josephine  BAYONA   Facts:Soriano  Mata  was  charged  with  violation  of  PD  810.  and  it  is  equivalent  to  a  violation  of   the  constitutional  provision  prohibiting  the  compulsion  of  an  accused  to  testify  against  himself     Soriano  MATA  vs  Hon.  is  that   the   articles   were   seized   in   order   that   the   Anti-­‐Usury   Board   might   provide   itself   with   evidence   to   be   used   by   it   in   the   criminal   case   or   cases   which   might   be   filed   against   him   for   violation   of   the   Anti-­‐usury   Law.  members  of  the  Intelligence  Section    of  the  Police  District.  1994     Facts:   .   During  the  hearingof  the  case.  When  he  inquired  from  the  City  Fiscal  the  certified  copies   of  the  records  pertinent  to  the  issuanceof  the  search  warrant.personally  examine  on  oath  or  affirmation  the  complainant  and  any   witnesses  he  may  produce  and  take  their  depositions  in  writinv  and  attach  them  to  the  record.  she  thought  it  mor e  prudent  not  to  conduct  the  taking  of  the  deposition  which  is  usually  done  publicly  in  the  court  room.  Judge  must  strictly  comply  with  the  requirements  of  the  Constitution  and  the  statutory  provi sions.  the  absence  of  certified  depositions  would  render  the  search  warrant  illegal.  "its  with  the  court".   At   the   hearing   of   the   incidents  of  the  case  raised  before  the  court  it  clearly  appeared  that  the  books  and  documents  had  really  been  seized  to   enable  the  Anti-­‐Usury   Board   to   conduct   an   investigation   and   later   use   all   or   some   of   the   articles   in   question   as   evidence   against  the  petitioner  in  the  criminal  cases  that  may  be  filed  against  him.  Del  Rosario   G.  He  was  given  copies  of  the  affidavits  connected  with  the  issuance  of  the  warrant    but   the  same  were  not  certified  or  were  just  photocopied  records.   Deposition  is  the  written  testimony  of  the  witness  given  in  the  course  of  the  judicial  proceeding  in  advance  of  the  trial  or   hearing  upon  oralexami  ation.  109633   July  20.  before  issuing  the  warrant.  invok ing  Rule  126  of  the  Rules  of  Court.  The  examining  Judge  has  to  take  depositions  in  writing  of  the  com plainant  and  the  witnesses  he  may  produce.  in  addition  to  theaffidavit s  presented  him.

 together  with   Fredo  Echigoren  and  Totoy  Echigoren.  papatayin  natin  mamaya.  of  April  30.   the   raiding  party  was  authorized  to  seize  only  shabu  and  paraphernalia  for  the  use  thereof  and  no  other.  appellant  Gabriel  Gerente.   in   the   search   warrant.  testified  that  she  witnessed  the  killing.   one   containing   the   marked   money.  papatayin  natin  si  Clarito  Blace.m.   Facts:  Edna  Edwina  Reyes  testified  that  at  about  7:00  a."  and  Totoy  Echigoren  allegedly  seconded  Fredo's  suggestion  saying:   "Papatayin  natin  'yan  mamaya.  Article  III)  and  the  Rules  of  Court   (Section   3.  followed  by  Totoy  Echigoren  and  Gabriel  Gerente  who  hit  him  twice  with  a  piece  of  wood  in  the  head  and  when   .   San   Roque.  1991  a  search  warrant  authorizing  the  search   and   seizure   of   an   "undetermined   quantity   of   Methamphetamine   Hydrochloride   commonly   known   as   shabu   and   its   paraphernalia’s"   in   the   premises   of   appellant's   house   located   at   828   R.  A  search  warrant  is   not  a  sweeping  authority  empowering  a  raiding  party  to  undertake  a  finishing  expedition  to  seize  and  confiscate  any  and   all  kinds  of  evidence  or  articles  relating  to  a  crime.   napkins   and   a   burner.  plaintiff-­‐appellee.  In  herein  case.   for   as   earlier   observed.   The   search   warrant   implemented   by   the   raiding   party   authorized   only   the   search   and   seizure   of   ".  The  Constitution  itself  (Section  2.  much   less   described   with   particularity.   Cavite   City."  Appellant  allegedly  agreed:  "Sigue.  She  testified  that  she  heard  Fredo  Echigoren   saying.  Regional   Trial  Court  Judge  Arturo  de  Guia  issued  in  the  morning  of  September  4.   Thus.   Issue:   Whether  or  Not  the  seizure  of  the  firearms  was  proper.  She   overheard  the  three  men  talking  about  their  intention  to  kill  Clarito  Blace.   Rule   126)   specifically   mandate   that   the   search   warrant   must   particularly   describe   the   things   to   be   seized.  started  drinking  liquor  and  smoking  marijuana  in  the  house  of  the  appellant  which   is  about  six  (6)  meters  away  from  the  house  of  the  prosecution  witness  who  was  in  her  house  on  that  day.  1990.m.   Diokno.   The   Constitution  expressly  ordains  the  exclusion  in  evidence  of  illegally  seized  articles.  Fredo  Echigoren  struck  the  first  blow  against  Clarito   Blace.   Held:   No.   an   aluminium   foil.  Edna  Edwina  Reyes.   an   entrapment   was   planned   that   led   to   the   arrest   of   del   Rosario   and   to   the   seizure   a   black   canister   containing   shabu.  the  only  objects  to  be   seized   that   the   warrant   determined   was   the   methamphetamine   and   the   paraphernalia‘s   therein.  the  search  warrant  was  no  authority  for  the  police  officers  to  seize  the  firearm  which  was  not  mentioned.   the   described   quantity   of   Methamphetamine   Hydrochloride   commonly   known   as   shabu   and   its   paraphernalia’’.   three   used   ammunitions   in   a   cup   and   three   wallets."  Fredo  and  Totoy   Echigoren  and  Gerente  carried  out  their  plan  to  kill  Clarito  Blace  at  about  2:00  p.Upon  application  of  SPO3  Raymundo  Untiveros  of  the  Philippine  National  Police  (PNP)  of  Cavite  City.  "Gabriel..   Neither   may   it   be   maintained   that   the   gun   was   seized   in   the   course   of   an   arrest.   Said   firearm.   .   a   paltik   .   Basa   St.   .     Accused   was   charged   and   convicted   by   the   trial   court   of   illegal   possession   of   firearms   and   illegal   possession   and   sale  of  drugs.   the   same   is   not   admissible   in   evidence   (Stonehill   vs.   having   been   illegally   seized.   The   seizure   of   the   firearms  was  unconstitutional.  of  the  same  day.  The  prosecution   witness.  GABRIEL  GERENTE  y  BULLO.   They   also   found   inside   a   show   box   aluminium   foils.  particularly  methamphetamine  or  shabu.     After   the   issuance   of   the   search   warrant.   20   SCRA   383   [1967]).22   caliber   atop   the   TV   set.   Thus.     PEOPLE  OF  THE  PHILIPPINES.   accused-­‐appellant's   arrest   was   far   from   regular   and   legal.  vs.

m.  150.  This  is  in  accordance  with  Section  12.  —  A  person  lawfully  arrested  may  be  searched  for  dangerous   weapons  or  anything  which  may  be  used  as  proof  of  the  commission  of  an  offense.  p.  Edna  Edwina   Reyes.   The  policemen  proceeded  to  the  house  of  the  appellant  who  was  then  sleeping.  proceeded  to  Paseo  de  Blas  where  the  mauling  incident  took  place.  There   they  found  a  piece  of  wood  with  blood  stains.  They  told  him  to  come  out  of  the  house   and  they  introduced  themselves  as  policemen.  Cruz's  Constitutional  Law.  If  they  had  postponed   his  arrest  until  they  could  obtain  a  warrant.  Edna  Edwina  Reyes.  The  search  conducted  on  Gerente's  person  was  likewise  lawful  because  it  was  made   as  an  incident  to  a  valid  arrest.  The  doctors  alerted  the  military  to  his  presence  there.  They  saw   Blace  dead  in  the  hospital  and  when  they  inspected  the  scene  of  the  crime.  reported  the  happening  to  the  policemen  and  pinpointed  her  neighbor.S.  Under   those  circumstances.     RE:  ROLANDO  DURAL  Ronnie  Javellon  was  arrested  without  a  warrant  while  he  was  confined  at  the  Saint  Agnes  Hospital   and  receiving  treatment  for  gunshot  wounds.  that  she  saw  the  killing  and  she  pointed  to  Gabriel  Gerente  as  one  of  the   three  men  who  killed  Clarito.  47  U.  He  was  identified   .  Search  incident  to  lawful  arrest.  the  policemen  have  personal  knowledge  that  the  person  to  be  arrested  have  committed  the  crime.  or  within  his  immediate  control  may  be  seized.  They  were  informed  by  the   prosecution  witness.  Gerente.  The  eye-­‐witness.  The   policemen  arrested  Gerente  only  some  three  (3)  hours  after  Gerente  and  his  companions  had  killed  Blace.  The  cause  of  death  was  massive   fracture  of  the  skull  caused  by  a  hard  and  heavy  object.  Thereafter.  they  could  lawfully  arrest  Gerente  without  a  warrant."           UMIL  v.   Issues:   Whether  the  policemen  have  personal  knowledge  of  the  person  to  be  arrested  has  committed  the  crime  when  they   proceeded  to  scene  crime  and  the  witness  pointed  the  appellant?   Whether  the  evidence  that  was  found  to  appellant’s  pocket  is  admissible?   Held:  Yes.  1991  Edition.  of  the  same  day.  cited  in  Justice  Isagani  A.   At  about  4:00  p.  The  Forensic  Chemist  found  them  to  be  marijuana.  The  dried  leaves  were  sent  to  the  National  Bureau  of   Investigation  for  examination.  for  the  person  who  is  about  to  be  arrested  may  be  armed  and  might  attack  them  unless  he  is  first  disarmed.  they  found  the  instruments  of  death:  a  piece   of  wood  and  a  concrete  hollow  block  which  the  killers  had  used  to  bludgeon  him  to  death.  since  the  policemen  had  personal  knowledge  of  the  violent  death  of  Blace  and  of  facts  indicating   that  Gerente  and  two  others  had  killed  him.  Totoy  Echigoren  dropped  a  hollow  block  on  the  victim's  head.  Patrolman  Jaime  Urrutia  of  the  Valenzuela  Police  Station  received  a  report  from   the  Palo  Police  Detachment  about  a  mauling  incident."  The  frisk   and  search  of  appellant's  person  upon  his  arrest  was  a  permissible  precautionary  measure  of  arresting  officers  to  protect   themselves.  without  a  search  warrant.  together  with  Police  Corporal   Romeo  Lima  and  Patrolman  Alex  Umali.  Rule  126  of  the  Revised  Rules  of  Court  which   provides:  "Section  12.  the  three  men  dragged  Blace  to  a  place   behind  the  house  of  Gerente.  a  hollow  block  and  two  roaches  of  marijuana.  Right  away.  Patrolman  Urrutia.  he  would  have  fled  the  law  as  his  two  companions  did.  Patrolman  Urrutia  frisked  appellant  and  found  a  coin  purse  in  his   pocket  which  contained  dried  leaves  wrapped  in  cigarette  foil.  Williams.  He  went  to  the  Valenzuela  District  Hospital  where  the  victim  was   brought.  as  one  of  the  killers.   In  Adams  vs.he  fell.  RAMOS   Per  Curiam   FACTS:  Consolidated  cases  for  Habeas  Corpus.  He  was  informed  by  the  hospital  officials  that  the  victim  died  on  arrival.  143.   Yes.  it  was  ruled   that  "the  individual  being  arrested  may  be  frisked  for  concealed  weapons  that  may  be  used  against  the  arresting  officer   and  all  unlawful  articles  found  his  person.  the  evidence  was  admissible.

 The  information   was  based  on  actual  facts.  He  also  admitted  that  he  was  a  ranking  member  of  the   NPA.  Marikina.  1988.  Domingo  Anonuevo  and  Ramon  Casiple  arrived  at  the  safehouse   and  agents  frisked  them.  explosives  and  ammunition.  RAMON  CASIPLE.  Renato  Constantine  was  confronted.  Marikina  Heights.  and  one  occupied  by  Benito   Tiamzon  –  were  being  used  as  NPA  safehouses.  they  had  ownership  of  unlicensed  firearms.  He  also  admitted  to   being  an  NPA  courier.  WILFREDO  BUENAOBRA.  Ammunition  and  subversive  documents  were  thereafter  found  in  Ocaya’s  car.     RE:  AMELIA  ROQUE.  Amelia  Roque  was  arrested  in  consequence  to  Buenaobra’s  arrest  because  he  had  in  his   possession  papers  leading  to  her  whereabouts.  AND  VICKY  OCAYA     The  accused  were  arrested  after  military  agents  received  information  from  a  former  NPA  member  that  two  houses  –  one   occupied  by  Renato  Constantine  and  located  in  Molave  Street.  hanggang  sa  magkagulo  na.  Sta.  Javellon  later  turned  out  to   be  Rolando  Dural.  Military  agents  were  dispatched  on   confidential  information  to  verify  if  an  NPA  member  had  indeed  been  admitted  for  a  gunshot  wound.  He  could  not  produce  any  permit  for  the  firearms  in  his  house.     ISSUE:  Were  the  arrests  validly  effected?     HELD:   RE:  ROLANDO  DURAL   YES.  The   NPA  is  an  outlawed  organization  and  membership  therein  is  a  continuing  crime.  WILFREDO  BUENAOBRA.  He  was  committing  an  offense  when  he  was  arrested  –  being  an  NPA  member.  subversive  documents.  finding  subversive  documents.  radio  and  other  equipment  in  the  residence.  That  same   morning.  Tiamzon’s  house  was  the  subject  of  a  search   warrant.  Manila.  At  the  time  of  their  arrests.  Wilfredo  Buenaobra  arrived  at  the  safehouse  and  had  letters  for  Constantine  and  other  rebels.  Vicky  Ocaya  was  arrested   without  a  warrant  when  she  arrived  at  the  house  of  Benito  Tiamzon.  DOMINGO  ANONUEVO.  RAMON  CASIPLE.  and  on  November  22.  Espiritu  spoke  at  a   gathering  of  drivers  and  sympathizers.       RE:  AMELIA  ROQUE.  They  were  searched  pursuant  to  search  warrants  and  were  found  with  unlicensed   firearms.  saying  ‘Bukas  tuloy  ang  welga  natin.  Subversive  documents  and  live  ammunition  were  found  in  her   possession  and  she  admitted  to  belonging  to  the  group.  Pursuant  to  a  search   warrant.  The  houses  were  put  under  military  surveillance.  There  was  probable  cause  to   support  their  warrantless  arrests.  Mesa.  their  arrests  were  all  valid.  They  also  admitted  to  membership  in  the  NPA.  Muntinlupa.  and  loaded  guns  without  permits.  one  of  the   suspects.  as  well  as   the  ammunitions.  supported  by  circumstances  sufficient  to  engender  a  belief  that  an  NPA  member  truly  was  in   that  hospital.  with  exact  locations  and  the  names   of  Renato  Constantine  and  Benito  Tiamzon.  AND  VICKY  OCAYA     YES.  He  did  not  cease  to  be  a  subversive  for   purposes  of  arrest  simply  because  he  was  confined  at  St.the  day  before  as  being  one  of  the  people  who  shot  2  CAPCOM  policemen  in  their  patrol  car.  14  days  later.     RE:  DEOGRACIAS  ESPIRITU   The  accused  was  arrested  without  a  warrant  on  the  basis  of  the  attestation  of  certain  witnesses  that  at  5:00pm.  DOMINGO  ANONUEVO.   .’  RE:  NARCISO   NAZARENO  Romulo  Bunye  II  was  killed  by  a  group  of  men  in  Alabang.  Agnes  Hospital.  The  reason  for  all  their  arrests  was  that   military  authorities  received  information  about  2  safehouses  being  used  by  the  NPA.  the  warrantless  arrest  was  valid.  at  the   corner  of  Magsaysay  Boulevard  and  Velencia  Street.  They  were  caught  in  flagrante    delicto.  Nazareno  was  arrested  without  a  warrant.  a  known  NPA  member.  was  arrested  and  he  pointed  out  Narciso  Nazareno  as  one  of  his  companions  during  the  killing.   ammunition.  Ramil  Regala.

    Issue:   Whether  or  not  the  arrest  without  warrant  of  the  accused  is  lawful   Held:   Court   ruled   in   the   affirmative.   .   Upon   arraignment.   Fulgencio   saw   the   respondent   enter   the   chapel.  He  also  gave  marijuana  to  a  group  of  persons.  the  warrantless  arrest  was  valid.     People  vs.  the  arrest  falls  under   Sec.  Pat.  The  arrest  had  to  be  made  promptly.   (1)   When   a   peace   officer   or   private   person.5(b).   the   person   to   be   arrested   has   committed.  He  was  arrested  not  for  subversion  but  for  uttering  words  which  the  arresting   officers  believed  to  constitute  Inciting  to  Sedition.  even  without  a  warrant.  Jr  (Station   Commander)  to  monitor  the  activities  of  respondent  because  of  the  information  gathered  that  he  was  selling  marijuana.  Sucro   Facts:   March  21.   Rule   113   of   the   Rules   of   Court   provides   instances   where   arrest   without   warrant   is   considered   lawful.   taking   something   which   turned   out   later   to   be   a  marijuana.     Seraspi’s  team  proceeded  to  the  area.  Adjacent  to   the   house.   The   contention   by   the   reposndent   that   his   arrest   was   illegal   and   that   the   police   team   has   enough  time  to  prepare  for  a  warrant  is  without  merit.   is   actually   committing.   in   his   presence.     RE:  NARCISO  NAZARENO     YES.     Section   5.   Fulgencio   witnessed   the   commission  by  the  respondent  of  the  offense  and  the  police  team  had  personal  knowledge  since  Macabante  admitted   about  the  sale  of  prohibited  drugs  by  the  respondent.  Iloilo  City  for  analysis.   RE:  DEOGRACIAS  ESPIRITU     YES.  After  witnessing  a  third  buyer  identified  as  Ronnie  Macabante.  considering  the  failure  of  the   investigating  officers  to  appear  at  the  re-­‐investigation.   About  5pm.  (2)  When  an  offense  has  in  fact  just  been  committed.  Fulgencio   then  radioed  Seraspi  and  reported  what  was  going  on.  Although  Nazareno’s  arrest  was  effected  14  days  later.  Quimpo  street.  The  case  was  mooted  anyhow.  Kalibo  Aklan  was  instructed  by  P/Lt  Vicente  Seraspi.  The  team  caught  up  Macabante  and  admitted  that  he  bought  marijuana  from  the   respondent.  a  member  of  the  INP.   In   this   case.  1989.  He  handed  the  same  to  a  buyer.  or  is  attempting  to  commit  an  offense.  and  he  has   personal   knowledge   of   the   facts   indicating   that   said   person   has   committed   it.     In  People  vs  Bati:  Police  officers  have  personal  knowledge  when  it  had  earlier  conducted  surveillance  activities  of  the   accused.   was   a   chapel.  Aldie  Borromeo.  Roy  Fulgencio.  Rule  113  of  the  Rules  of  Court  since  it  was  only  then  that  the  police  came  to  know  that  Nazareno  was  probably   one  of  those  guilty  in  the  killing  of  Bunye  II.  the  warrantless  arrest  was  valid.   The   police   team   arrested   the   respondent   and   recovered   19   sticks   and   4   teabags   of   marijuana   from   the   cart   inside  the  chapel  and  another  teabag  from  Macabante.   trial   court   rendered   judgment   finding   Edison   Sucro   guilty   of   the   sale   of   prohibited   drug   under   the   Dangerous  Drug  Act.  to  prevent   possible  flight.  Fulgencio  positioned  himself  under  the  house  of  a  certain  Arlie  Regalado  at  C.  The  teabags  were  sent  to  Camp  Delgado.

 Rule   113.   falls   under   Section   5.  Subsequently  a  criminal  charge  was  brought  against  him.   FACTS:   .R.  almost  had  a  collision  with  another  vehicle.   he   neither   expressed   surrender   nor   any   statement   that   he   was   or   was   not   guilty   of   any   crime.  the   prosecutor   filed   the   case   to   the   lower   court.   When   a   complaint   was   filed   to   the   prosecutor.   Petitioner  thereafter  got  out  of  his  car.”   i.   Rule  112  of  The  1985  Rules  of  Criminal  Procedure  which   provides   for   the   rules   and   procedure   pertaining   to   situations   of   lawful  warrantless  arrests.   That  searches  and  seizures  must  be  supported  by  a  valid  warrant  is  not  an  absolute  rule.  1990   ROMEO  POSADAS  y  ZAMORA.   Rule   113   and   Section   7.  There  was  no  lawful  warrantless  arrest  under  Section  5.  Petitioner  in  his  petition  for  certiorari  assails  such  procedure  and  actions  undertaken  and  files   for  a  preliminary  investigation.   Petition   granted.   thus   they   had   no   personal   knowledge   and   their   information   regarding   petitioner   were   derived   from   other   sources.   a   peson   lawfully   arresred   may   be   searched   for   dangerous   weapons   or   anything   which   may   be   used   as   proof   of   the   commission   of   an   offense   without   search  warrant.e.  petitioner  is  ordered  released  upon  posting  a  bail  bond.   THE  HONORABLE  COURT  OF  APPEALS  and  THE  PEOPLE  OF  THE  PHILIPPINES.  while  traveling  in  the  wrong  direction  on  a  one-­‐way  street.  etc.  6  days  after  the  shooting.  petitioner   is   entitled   to   preliminary   investigation.       Petitioner   was   not   arrested   at   all.  89139  August  2.   Section   7.  No.   setting   and   commencing   trial   without   preliminary   investigation.   Rule   112.     vs.   Sec12   of   Rules   on   Criminal   Procedure.  membership  in  an  outlawed  organization.   where   the   same   is   required   appear   thereat.   prosecutor   is   ordered   to   conduct   preliminary   investigation.  CA  Case  Digest     Facts:  Petitioner.  What  is  paramount  is  that  a  probable  cause   existed.  accompanied  by  2   lawyers.   Prosecutor   reasons   that   the   petitioner   has   waived   his   right   to   preliminary   investigation   as   bail   has   been   posted   and   that   such   situation.     One   exception   granted   by   law:     Rule   126.       Issue:       Whether  or  Not  warrantless  arrest  of  petitioner  was  lawful.  respondents.   who   subsequently   ordered   a   manhunt  for  petitioner.  petitioner.   trial   for   the   criminal   case   is   suspended   pending  result  from  preliminary  investigation.   necessarily   in   a   criminal   charge.       Held:  Petitioner  and  prosecutor  err  in  relying  on  Umil  v.   preliminary   investigation  should  have  been  scheduled  to  determine  probable  cause.  shot  the  driver  of  the  other  vehicle.  Ramos.         Go  vs.  wherein  the  Court  upheld  the  warrantless  arrest  as  valid   effected   1   to   14   days   from   actual   commission   of   the   offenses.  Petitioner  posted  bail.       Whether  or  Not  petitioner  effectively  waived  his  right  to  preliminary  investigation.  the  police  detained  him.   as   when   he   walked   in   the   police   station.  An  eyewitness  of  the  incident   was   able   to   take   down   petitioner’s   plate   number   and   reported   the   same   to   the   police.  Prosecutor  made  a  substantive  error.       G.   which   however   constituted   “continuing   crimes.  petitioner  presented  himself  in  the  police  station.   does  not  apply.The  failure  to  secure  a  warrant  stems  from  the  fact  that  their  knowledge  acquired  from  the  previous  surveillance  was   insufficient  to  fulfill  the  requirements  for  the  issuance  of  a  search  warrant.  and  drove  off.   This   is   because   the   arresting   officers   were   not   actually   there   during   the   incident.   Further.   subversion.   that   petitioner   has   been   arrested   without   a   warrant   lawfully.

 the  Don.   Section  5.  No.  Arrest  without  warrant.  both  members  of   the  Integrated  National  Police  (INP)  of  the  Davao  Metrodiscom  assigned  with  the  Intelligence  Task  Force.  Such  an  exercise  may  prove  to  be  useless.  or  is   attempting  to  commit  an  offense.22  caliber  gun.  3and  two  (2)  live   ammunitions  for  a  .  Rule  113  of  the  1985  Rules  on  Criminal  Procedure  provides  as  follows:   SEC.   They  then  checked  the  "buri"  bag  of  the  petitioner  where  they  found  one  (1)  caliber  .  argues  that   under  Section  12.  He  was  prosecuted  for   illegal  possession  of  firearms  and  ammunitions  in  the  Regional  Trial  Court  of  Davao  City   ISSUE:  Whether  or  Not  the  warantless  search  is  valid.   In  the  case  at  bar.  herein  accused.  5.  The  probable  cause  is  that  when  the  petitioner  acted  suspiciously  and  attempted  to  flee  with  the  buri   bag  there  was  a  probable  cause  that  he  was  concealing  something  illegal  in  the  bag  and  it  was  the  right  and  duty  of  the   police  officers  to  inspect  the  same.  met  with  him  and  “a   certain  object  wrapped  in  a  plastic”  later  identified  as  marijuana  was  given  in  exchange  for  P200.   HELD:   The  Solicitor  General.R.  Petitioner  attempted  to  flee  but  his   attempt  to  get  away  was  thwarted  by  the  two  notwithstanding  his  resistance.  asked  for  a  certain  Don.  One  of   the  agents  went  to  said  location.  95902.  1986  at  about  10:00  o'clock  in  the  morning  Pat.       People  vs.On  October  16.  4  They  brought  the  petitioner  to  the  police  station  for  further  investigation.  there  is  no  question  that.  the  person  to  be  arrested  has  committed  is  actually  committing.  Umbra  Umpar.  and   (c)  When  the  person  to  be  arrested  is  a  prisoner  who  has  escaped  from  a  penal  establishment  or  place   where  he  is  serving  final  judgment  or  temporarily  confined  while  his  case  is  pending.  While  they  were  within  the  premises  of  the  Rizal   Memorial  Colleges  they  spotted  petitioner  carrying  a  "buri"  bag  and  they  noticed  him  to  be  acting  suspiciously.38  Smith  &  Wesson  revolver  with   Serial  No.  The  agent  went  back  to   .38  caliber  gun  2  a  smoke  (tear  gas)  grenade.  He  was  then  taken  to  the  Davao  Metrodiscom  office  and  the   prohibited  articles  recovered  from  him  were  indorsed  to  M/Sgt.  It  is  further  alleged  that  the  arrest   without  a  warrant  of  the  petitioner  was  lawful  under  the  circumstances.   It  is  too  much  indeed  to  require  the  police  officers  to  search  the  bag  in  the  possession  of  the  petitioner  only  after  they   shall  have  obtained  a  search  warrant  for  the  purpose.  and  he  has  personal  knowledge  of  facts  indicating   that  the  person  to  be  arrested  has  committed  it.   They  approached  the  petitioner  and  identified  themselves  as  members  of  the  INP.  or  has  escaped   while  being  transferred  from  one  confinement  to  another.  Davao  City.  Rule  136  of  the  Rules  of  Court  a  person  lawfully  arrested  may  be  searched  for  dangerous  weapons  or   anything  used  as  proof  of  a  commission  of  an  offense  without  a  search  warrant.  1992)   Facts:       NARCOM  agents  staged  a  buy-­‐bust  operation.  when  lawful  —  A  peace  officer  or  a  private  person  may.  futile  and  much  too   late.  after  gaining  information  that  there  was  an  ongoing  illegal  traffic   of  prohibited  drugs  in  Tagas.  were   conducting  a  surveillance  along  Magallanes  Street.  Albay.   Clearly.  the  petitioner  was  asked  to  show  the  necessary  license  or  authority  to  possess  firearms  and   ammunitions  found  in  his  possession  but  he  failed  to  do  so.  in  justifying  the  warrantless  search  of  the  buri  bag  then  carried  by  the  petitioner.  the  search  in  the  case  at  bar  can  be  sustained  under  the  exceptions  heretofore  discussed.  Thereafter.  without  a   warrant.  The  participating  agents  were  given  money  treated  with  ultraviolet  powder.  In  the   course  of  the  same.  Ursicio  Ungab  and  Pat.  and  hence.  it  is  reasonable  considering  that  it  was  effected  on  the  basis  of   a  probable  cause.   (b)  When  an  offense  has  in  fact  just  been  committed.  indeed.  Didoy  the  officer  then  on  duty.  arrest  a  person:   (a)  When  in  his  presence.  770196  1  two  (2)  rounds  of  live  ammunition  for  a  .  the   constitutional  guarantee  against  unreasonable  searches  and  seizures  has  not  been  violated.  Rodriqueza  (G.  Feb  4.

  HELD:   YES.  one  of  whom  holding  his  abdomen.   Issue:  Whether  or  Not  the  raid  conducted  by  NARCOM  agents  is  in  violation  of  unreasonable  Search  and  Seizures?   Held:       The  NARCOM  agents’  procedure  in  the  entrapment  of  the  accused  failed  to  meet  the  qualification  that  the   suspected  drug  dealer  must  be  caught  red-­‐handed  in  the  act  of  selling  marijuana  to  a  person  posing  as  a  buyer.  a  team  was  subsequently  organized  and  a  raid  was  conducted  in  the   house  of  the  father  of  the  accused.  Mengote  made  no  effort  to  prove  that  he  owned  the  fire  arm  or  that  he  was  licensed  to  possess  it   but  instead.  because  they  easily  could.  Evidence  obtained  as  a  result  of  an  illegal  search  and  seizure  inadmissible  in  any  proceeding  for  any  purpose   as  provided  by  Art.     For  his  part.   Manila.  Had  it  been  their  intention  to  conduct  the  raid.  which  he  reported  to  the  police  including   the  revolver.  found   him  guilty  of  violating  the  Dangerous  Drugs  Act  of  1972  and  sentenced  him  to  reclusion  perpetua.   In   his   appeal   he   pleads   that   the   weapon   was   not   admissible   as   evidence   against   him  because   it   had   been   illegally   seized   and   therefore   the  fruit  of  a  poisonous  tree.  based  on  which.     The  patrolmen  saw  two  men   looking  from  side  to  side.  have  first  secured  a   search  warrant  during  that  time.D.   while   his   companion   had   a   fan   knife.   or   is   attempting   to   commit   an   offense.  The  accused  was  found  positive   of  ultraviolet  powder.  he  claimed  that  the  weapon  was  planted  on  him  at  the  time  of  his  arrest.  1992     *Under  warrantless  search  and  arrest   FACTS:     • The   Western   Police   District   received   a   telephone   call   from   an   informer   that   there   were   three   suspicious   looking   persons   at   the   corner   of   Juan   Luna   and   North   Bay   Boulevard   in   Tondo.  provides  arrest  without  warrant   lawful   when:   (a)   the   person   to   be   arrested   has   committed.e.5  of  the  Rules  of  Court.     The   suspects   were   then   searched.  The  Court  further  notes  the  confusion  and  ambiguity  in  the  identification  of  the   confiscated  marijuana  leaves  and  other  prohibited  drug  paraphernalia  presented  as  evidence  against  appellant:   People  vs.1866   and   was   sentenced   to   reclusion   perpetua.   The   weapons   were   taken   from   them   and   they   were   turned  over  to  the  police  headquarters  for  investigation.  the  NARCOM  agents  were  able  to  confiscate  dried  marijuana  leaves   and  a  plastic  syringe  among  others.  since  the   operation  was  conducted  after  the  actual  exchange.  They  approached   the   persons   and   identified   themselves   as   policemen.  Rule  113  sec.  and  he  has  personal  knowledge  of  the  facts  indicating   .   is   actually   committing.   whereupon   the   two   tried   to   run   but   unable   to   escape   because  the  other  lawmen  surrounded  them.    He   was   convicted   for   violation   of   P.  The   NARCOM  agents  could  not  have  justified  their  act  by  invoking  the  urgency  and  necessity  of  the  situation  because  the   testimonies  of  the  prosecution  witnesses  reveal  that  the  place  had  already  been  put  under  surveillance  for  quite  some   time.  III  sec  32  of  the  Constitution.   A   witness   testified  that  the  weapon  was  among  the  articles  stolen  at  his  shop.  During  the  raid.  when  the  search  is  incidental  to  a  lawful  arrest.  Said  raid  also  violated  accused’  right  against  unreasonable  search   and  seizure.  The  lower  court.  87059     June  22.  considering  the  evidences  obtained  and  testimonies  from  the  prosecution.  i.   • • • • • ISSUE:   Whether  or  not  the  warrantless  search  and  arrest  was  illegal.headquarters  and  made  a  report.  as  the  situation  did  not  fall  in  the  circumstances  wherein  a  search  may  be  validly  made  even  without  a   search  warrant.   A   surveillance   team   of   plainclothesmen  was  forthwith  dispatched  to  the  place.38   caliber   with   live   ammunitions   in   it.   One   of   them   the   accused-­‐appellant   was   found   with   a   .  There  was  no  authorization  by  any  search  warrant.  (b)  when  the  offense  in  fact  has  just  been   committed.  when  it  involves  prohibited  articles  in  plain  view.  Mengote               GR  No.  then  they  should.     Information   was   filed   before   the   RTC   convicting   the   accused   of   illegal   possession   of   firearm   arm.

  several   policemen   arrived   and   ordered   all   males   to   stand   aside.   he   was   on   foot   patrol   with   three   other   police   officers   (all   of   them   in   uniform)   along   Quezon   Boulevard.    However.   the   prosecution   presented   the   following   police   officers   as   its   witnesses:   Rodolfo   Yu.  the  investigating  officer.    At   around   6:30   in   the   evening   of   27   August   1990.  unlawfully  and  knowingly  keep.  according  to  the  arresting  officers  themselves.   1866.  informing  them  of  their  rights  to  remain   silent   and   to   be   assisted   by   competent   and   independent   counsel.   “It  would  be  a  sad  day.  said  accused  did  then  and  there  willfully.  without  first  securing  the  necessary  license  and/or  permit  therefor  from  the  proper  authorities.  comprised  of  three  to  four  men.   At  pre-­‐trial.  if  any  person  could  be  summarily  arrested  and  searched  just  because  he   is   holding   his   abdomen.   Manila.   petitioner   and   a   certain   Abdul   Casan   were   brought   in   by   Sgt.   as   follows:   On  or  about  August  27.  Josefino  G.    He  declared  that  he  arrived  in  Manila  on  22  July  1990  and  resided  at  the   Muslim   Center   in   Quiapo.  possess  and/or   acquire  a  hand  grenade.  1990.   They   chanced  upon  two  groups   of   Muslim-­‐looking  men.   There   was   apparently   no   offense   that   has   just   been   committed   or   was   being   actually   committed   or   at   least   being   attempt  by  Mengote  in  their  presence.   the   accused   appellant  was  merely  looking  from  side  to  side  and  holding  his  abdomen.  Serapio  conducted  the  inquest  of  the  two  suspects.”     Yu  declared  that  they  conducted  the  foot  patrol  due  to  a  report  that  a  group  of  Muslims  was  going  to  explode  a   grenade  somewhere  in  the  vicinity  of  Plaza  Miranda.   he   went   to    Plaza   Miranda   to   catch   a   breath   of   fresh   air.   in   response   to   bomb   threats   reported   seven   days   earlier..    The   policemen   searched   petitioner   and   two   other   men.   Rodolfo   testified   that   on   27   August   1990.    Despite   Serapio’s   advice.  posted  at  opposite   sides  of  the  corner  of  Quezon  Boulevard  near  the  Mercury  Drug  Store.   the   arresting  officer.    These  men  were  acting  suspiciously  with  their   eyes  …  moving  very  fast.   petitioner   and   Casan   manifested  their  willingness  to  answer  questions  even  without  the  assistance  of  a  lawyer     Petitioner  was  the  lone  defense  witness.  or  has  escaped  while  being   transferred  from  one  confinement  to  another.   These   requirements   have   not   been   established   in   the   case   at   bar.  Moreover  a  person  may  not  be  stopped  and  frisked  in  a  broad  daylight  or  on  a   busy  street  on  unexplained  suspicion.  25  August  1990.  personal  malice  on  the  part  of  the  arresting   officer  may  be  justified  in  the  name  of  security.   even   if   it   be   possibly   because   of   a   stomach-­‐ache.  indeed.”   Malacat  v  CA   Petitioner   Sammy   Malacat   y   Mandar   was   charged   with   violating   Section   3   of   Presidential   Decree   No.  Serapio.  This  simply  cannot  be  done  in  a  free  society.  the  prosecution  admitted  that  the  police  authorities  were  not  armed  with  a  search  warrant  nor  warrant   of  arrest  at  the  time  they  arrested  petitioner.  with  each  group.  and  Orlando  Ramilo.   Saquilla   for   investigation.m.   At   trial   on   the   merits.  worse.   or   if   a   peace   officer-­‐could   clamp   handcuffs   on   any   person   with   a   shifty   look   on   suspicion   that   he   may   have   committed   a   criminal   act  or  is  actually  committing  or  attempting  it.   at   about   6:30   p.    Yu  recognized  petitioner  as  the  previous  Saturday.   likewise  at  Plaza  Miranda.the  person  arrested  has  committed  it  and  (c)  the  person  to  be  arrested  has   escaped  from  a  penal  establishment  or  a   place  where  he  is  serving  final  judgment  or  temporarily  confined  while  his  case  is  pending.  who  examined  the  grenade.    Shortly   after.    Forthwith.   but   found   nothing   in   their   possession.   At   the   time   of   the   arrest   in   question.  Yu  saw  petitioner  and  2  others  attempt  to  detonate  a  grenade     On   28   August   1990.   he   was   arrested   with   two   .  This  is  not  a   police  state  where  order  is  exalted  over  liberty  or.

        Issue:   Whether  or  not  the  warrantless  arrest  done  by  the  police  officers  was  valid.others.”    This  officer   then   inserted   the   muzzle   of   his   gun   into   petitioner’s   mouth   and   said.     •   • .   The  accused  alleged  that  his  bag  was  confiscated  without  a  search  warrant  and  that  he  was  arbitrarily  arrested   and  immediately  handcuffed  without  a  warrant  of  arrest  after  the  marijuana  had  been  found  in  his  possession.  considering   the  time.  inspected  his  bag  and   found  3  kilos  of  what  were  later  analyzed  as  marijuana  leaves.   in   which   the   delay   necessary   to   obtain   a   warrant.”    Further.    He   saw   the   grenade  only  in  court  when  it  was  presented.   “You   are   the   one   who   shot   me.  and  since   petitioner  “Later  voluntarily  admitted  such  fact  to  the  police  investigator  for  the  purpose  of  bombing  the  Mercury  Drug   Store.  Aminnudin.    The   officer   showed  the  gunshot  wounds  he  allegedly  sustained  and  shouted  at  petitioner  “Ito  ang  tama  mo  sa  akin.     Upon  arrival.”    Petitioner   denied   the  charges  and  explained  that  he  only  recently  arrived  in  Manila.  place  and  “reported  cases  of  bombing.”  as  petitioner  and  his  companions  were  acting  suspiciously.   hitting   him   with   benches   and   guns.  several  other  police  officers  mauled  him.  was  on  board  a  vessel  bound  for  Iloilo  and  was  carrying  Marijuana.  Aminnudin  was  immediately  arrested  after  the  PC  officers  had  accosted  him.”  concluded  that  sufficient  evidence  existed  to  establish  petitioner’s  guilt  beyond  reasonable  doubt.  The  vessel  was  to  arrive   a  few  days  after  receiving  the  said  tip.       Searches  and  Seizures:   People  v  Aminnudin   GR  No.  1988     Facts:     • The   Philippine   Constabulary   (PC)   officers   of   Iloilo   City   received   a   tip   from   one   of   their   informers   that   the   accused.”  where  a   “warrant  and  seizure  can  be  effected  without  necessarily  being  preceded  by  an  arrest”  and  “whose  object  is  either  to   maintain  the  status  quo  momentarily  while  the  police  officer  seeks  to  obtain  more  information.  the  situation  called  for  an  investigation.     Held:   The  trial  court  ruled  that  the  warrantless  search  and  seizure  of  petitioner  was  akin  to  a  “stop  and  frisk.  but  to  allow  the  officer  to  pursue  his  investigation  without   fear  of  violence.  thus  “It  is  reasonable  for  an  officer  to  conduct  a  limited  search.   3.   Probable  cause  was  not   required  as  it  was  not  certain  that  a  crime  had  been  committed.  hence   to   require   probable   cause   would   have   been   “premature.  however.   Petitioner   was   once   again   searched.   threatens   the   destruction   of   evidence”   and  the  officers  “Had  to  act  in  haste.  the  purpose   of  which  is  not  necessarily  to  discover  evidence  of  a  crime.   but   nothing   was   found   on   him.    However.”   The  trial  court  then  ruled  that  the  seizure  of  the  grenade  from  petitioner  was  incidental  to  a  lawful  arrest.  petitioner’s  group  suddenly  ran  away  in  different  directions   as  they  saw  the  arresting  officers  approach.”   The   RTC   emphasized   that   Yu   and   his   companions   were   “Confronted   with   an   emergency.   brought   to   and   detained   at   Precinct   No.   where   he   was   accused   of   having   shot   a   police   officer.  L-­‐74869   July  6.

 Accused-­‐appellant  was  acquitted.     .   as   ordered.  to  justify  the  issuance  of  a  warrant.   set   up   a   checkpoint   at   the   designated   area   at   about   10:00  am.   it   is   clear   that   they   had   at   least   two   days   within   which   they  could  have  obtained  a  warrant  to  arrest  and  search  Aminnudin  who  was  coming  to  Iloilo  on  the  M/V  Wilcon  9.  Contrary  to  the  averments  of  the  government.  entered  the  Philippines  for  the  third  time  in  December  1988  as  a   tourist.  The  order  to  establish  a   checkpoint   in   the   said   area   was   prompted   by   persistent   reports   that   vehicles   coming   from   Sagada   were   transporting   marijuana   and   other   prohibited   drugs.  for  the  purpose  of  checking  all  vehicles  coming  from  the  Cordillera  Region.   During   the   inspection.   The   bulging   object   turned   out   to   be   a   pouch   bag   and   when   accused   opened   the   same   bag.     People  vs  Malmstedt   Gr.   CIC   Galutan   noticed   a   bulge   on   accused's   waist.  the  bus  where  accused  was  riding  was  stopped.   information   was   received   by   the   Commanding   Officer   of   NARCOM.   the   search   is   not   legal.   accused   went   to   the   Nangonogan   bus   stop   in   Sagada   to   catch   the   first   available   trip   to   Baguio   City.   that  same  morning.  Captain  Alen  Vasco.  The  2  NARCOM   officers  started  their  inspection  from  the  front  going  towards  the  rear  of  the  bus.  a  derivative  of  marijuana.Issue:  Whether  or  not  the  search  of  defendant’s  bag  is  legal?     Held:     No.   The   date   of   its   arrival   was   certain.  indeed.  Accused  who  was  the  sole  foreigner   riding   the   bus   was   seated   at   the   rear   thereof.  He  had  visited  the  country  sometime  in  1982  and  1985.  a  Swedish  national.   The   vehicle   was   identified.  accused  left  for  Baguio   City.  scheduled  on  May  13  1989.  When  accused  failed  to  comply.  No.   And   from   the   information   they   had   received.   Suspecting   the   bulge   on   accused's   waist   to   be   a   gun.   No   effort   was   made   to   comply   with   the   law.  The  group  composed  of   7   NARCOM   officers.  Tublay.     From   the   conflicting   declarations   of   the   PC   witnesses.       At  about  8:00  am  of  that  same  day.   there   was   no   warrant   of   arrest   or   search   warrant   issued   by   a   judge   after   personal   determination  by  him  of  the  existence  of  probable  cause.   The   warrantless   search   was   illegal   and   the   evidence   obtained   thereby   was   inadmissible.   Moreover.   Upon   his   arrival   thereat   in   the   morning   of   the   following   day.   From   Baguio   City.   Yet   they   did   nothing.   The   Bill   of   Rights   was   ignored   altogether   because   the   PC  lieutenant  who  was  the  head  of  the  arresting  team.   At   around   7:00   am   of   May   11   1989.   in   coordination   with   Tublay   Police   Station.  ordered  his  men  to  set  up  a  temporary  checkpoint  at  Kilometer  14.that  a  Caucasian  coming  from  Sagada  had  in  his  possession  prohibited  drugs.  The  wrapped  objects  turned  out  to  contain  hashish.   his   guilt   has   not   been   proved   beyond   reasonable   doubt   and   he   must   therefore   be   discharged   on   the   presumption  that  he  is  innocent.   the   officer   asked   for   accused's   passport   and   other   identification   papers.  Acop.  had  determined  on  his  own  authority  that  a  "search  warrant  was   not  necessary.  the  Commanding  Officer  of  the  First  Regional  Command   (NARCOM)  stationed  at  Camp  Dangwa.   Mountain  Province.   the   officer   noticed   4   suspicious-­‐looking   objects   wrapped   in   brown   packing   tape.     At  about  1:30  pm.  the  officer  required  him  to  bring  out  whatever  it  was  that  was  bulging  on  his   waist.   accused   planned   to   take   a   late   afternoon   trip   to   Angeles   City."   The  Supreme  Court  found  that  the  exclusion  of  the  illegally  seized  marijuana  as  evidence  against  the  accused-­‐ appellant.   then   proceed  to  Manila  to  catch  his  flight  out  of  the  country.   prompting   the   officer   to   open   one   of   the   wrapped   objects.  His   name   was   known.  they  could  have  persuaded  a  judge  that  there  was  probable  cause.  Fider  and  CIC  Galutan  boarded  the  bus   and  announced  that  they  were  members  of  the  NARCOM  and  that  they  would  conduct  an  inspection.     In   the   case   at   bar.  In  the  evening  of  May  7  1989.  91107     Facts:  Accused  Mikael  Malmstedt.  the  accused-­‐ appellant   was   not   caught  in   flagrante  nor   was   a   crime   about   to   be   committed   or   had   just   been   committed   to   justify   the   warrantless  arrest  allowed  under  Rule  113  of  the  Rules  of  Court.  Sgt.   he   took   a   bus   to   Sagada   and   stayed   in   that   place   for   2   days.

 there  was  sufficient  probable  cause  for   said  officers  to  believe  that  accused  was  then  and  there  committing  a  crime.  the  person  to  be  arrested  has  committed  is  actually  committing.  Thus.   without   a   warrant.  and   (c)   When   the   person   to   be   arrested   is   a   prisoner   who   has   escaped   from   a   penal   establishment   or   place   where   he   is   serving  final  judgment  or  temporarily  confined  while  his  case  is  pending.   (b)  When  an  offense  has  in  fact  just  been  committed.  a   prohibited  drug  which  is  a  derivative  of  marijuana.  The  officers  opened  the  teddy  bears  and  they  were  found  to  also  contain  hashish.   He   also   claimed   that   the   hashish   was   planted   by   the   NARCOM   officers   in   his   pouch   bag   and   that   the   2   travelling   bags  were  not  owned  by  him.  A  teddy  bear  was  found  in  each  bag.       Sec.   there   is   no   need  to  obtain  a  search  warrant.     The  accused  entered  a  plea  of  "not  guilty.  But  before  he  alighted  from  the  bus.  and  he  has  personal  knowledge  of  facts  indicating  that  the  person   to  be  arrested  has  committed  it.  While  it  is  true  that  the  NARCOM  officers  were  not  armed  with  a  search  warrant  when  the  search  was  made  over   the  personal  effects  of  accused.  it  was  established  that  the  objects  examined  were  hashish.  Feeling  the  teddy  bears.   papers   and   effects   against   unreasonable   searches   and   seizures.  they  decided  to  take  the  next  ride  and  asked  accused  to  take  charge  of  the  bags.  which  allow  a  warrantless  search  incident  to  a  lawful   arrest.  an  information  was  filed  against  accused  for  violation  of  the   Dangerous  Drugs  Act  of  1972.  Seeking   the  reversal  of  the  decision  of  the  trial  court  finding  him  guilty  of  the  crime  charged.  accused  was  invited  outside  the  bus  for  questioning.   However.  accused  argues  that  the  search  of   his  personal  effects  was  illegal  because  it  was  made  without  a  search  warrant  and.  in  his  presence.     Held:   The   Constitution   guarantees   the   right   of   the   people   to   be   secure   in   their   persons.  the  officer  noticed  that  there  were  bulges   inside  the  same  which  did  not  feel  like  foam  stuffing.  In  the  report.     Issue:  Whether  or  not  the  decision  of  the  trial  court  should  be  reversed  because  by  reason  that  the  search  and  arrest   made  was  illegal.  the  officers  got  the  bags  and   opened  them.  accused   stopped  to  get  2  travelling  bags  from  the  luggage  carrier.   arrest   a   person:     (a)  When.Thereafter.   Thus.   La   Trinidad.  or  is  attempting  to  commit   an  offense.  he  raised  the  issue  of  illegal  search  of  his  personal   effects.   the   search   made   upon   his   personal   effects   falls   squarely  under  paragraph  (1)  of  the  foregoing  provisions  of  law.     Accused   was   searched   and   arrested   while   transporting   prohibited   drugs   (hashish).  the  prohibited  drugs  which   were  discovered  during  the  illegal  search  are  not  admissible  as  evidence  against  him.     .   ––   A   peace   officer   or   a   private   person   may.  therefore.  A  lawful  arrest  without  a  warrant  may  be  made  by  a  peace  officer  or  a  private  person   under  the  following  circumstances.  however.   A   crime   was   actually   being   committed   by   the   accused   and   he   was   caught   in   flagrante   delicto.   when   lawful.  or  has  escaped  while  being  transferred  from   one  confinement  to  another.  Representative   samples  were  taken  from  the  hashish  found  among  the  personal  effects  of  accused  and  the  same  were  brought  to  the   PC  Crime  Laboratory  for  chemical  analysis.  and  that   they  would  meet  each  other  at  the  Dangwa  Station.     Accused   was   then   brought   to   the   headquarters   of   the   NARCOM   at   Camp   Dangwa.   where   the   search   is   made   pursuant   to   a   lawful   arrest.     The  trial  court  found  the  guilt  of  the  accused  Mikael  Malmstedt  established  beyond  reasonable  doubt.  Upon  stepping  out  of  the  bus.  but  were  merely  entrusted  to  him  by  an  Australian  couple  whom  he  met  in  Sagada.  under  the  circumstances  of  the  case.   Benguet   for   further  investigation.   houses.  He   further   claimed   that   the   Australian   couple   intended   to   take   the   same   bus   with   him   but   because   there   were   no   more   seats  available  in  said  bus.   5   Arrest   without   warrant.  It  was  only  after  the  officers  had  opened  the  bags  that  accused   finally  presented  his  passport."  For  his  defense.

 they   approached  petitioner.  he  replied  that  there  was  more  in  his   house.     vs.  provided  that  the  petitioner  was  apprehended  based  on   evidence.  arrest  a  person:   .  he  was  instead  brought  to  the  police  station  for  investigation  and   later  indicted  for  possession  of  prohibited  drugs.  Pagilagan.  because  of   existence  of  probable  cause.  1991.  Philippines.  petitioner  testified  that  on  said  evening.  without  a  warrant.  Wilfredo  Aquino.  and  Erlindo  Lumboy  of  the  Western  Police  District   (WPD). A  forensic  chemist  of  the  WPD  Criminal  Investigation  Laboratory  Section  confirmed  that  the  articles  sent  to  her   by  Pat. By  way  of  defense.       The  appealed  judgment  of  conviction  by  the  trial  court  is  hereby  affirmed.     3.  identified  themselves  as  policemen.  The  policemen  went  to  his  residence  where  they  found  ten  more  cellophane  tea  bags  of  marijuana.   Ø The  findings  of  the  trial  court  that  the  prosecution  witnesses  were  more  credible  than  those  of  the   defense  must  stand.  He  alleged  that  the  policemen  were  looking  for  his  brother-­‐in-­‐law   Lauro.  marijuana  weighing  5.5  grams  which  is  a  prohibited  drug.  Aquino  tested  positive  for  marijuana.  Pat.  and  frisked  him.  His  wife  Myrna  corroborated  his  story.The  warrantless  search  of  the  personal  effects  of  an  accused  has  been  declared  by  this  Court  as  valid.  When  asked  if  he  had  more  marijuana..  did  then  and  there  willfully.   FACTS:     1.  namely.  After  the  alleged  buyer  left.m.   unlawfully  and  knowingly  have  in  his  possession  and  under  his  custody  and  control  twelve  (12)  plastic  cellophane   (bags)  containing  crushed  flowering  tops.   Petitioner  was  brought  to  the  police  headquarters  where  he  was  charged  with  possession  of  prohibited  drugs.  1991.  the   presumption  of  regularity  in  the  performance  of  his  official  duty  must  prevail.   On  July  24.  Manila  to  confirm  reports  of  drug  pushing  in   the  area.  Narcotics  Division  went  to  Zamora  and  Pandacan  Streets.  and  when  they  could  not  find  the  latter.   4.  in  testifying  against  him.  Costs  against  the  accused-­‐appellant.  was   motivated  by  reasons  other  than  his  duty  to  curb  drug  abuse  and  had  any  intent  to  falsely  impute  to   him  such  a  serious  crime  as  possession  of  prohibited  drugs.  in  the  City  of  Manila.  he  and  other  police   officers.  on  July  14.  where  the  smell  of  marijuana  emanated  from  a  plastic  bag  owned  by  the  accused.  and  he  was  denied  the  constitutional  right  of  confrontation   and  to  compulsory  process.  the  said   accused  not  being  authorized  by  law  to  possess  or  use  any  prohibited  drug. Based  on  the  testimony  of  Pat.  The  search  yielded  two  plastic   cellophane  tea  bags  of  marijuana.   COURT  OF  APPEALS  and  PEOPLE  OF  THE  PHILIPPINES.  Romeo  Pagilagan.   The  issue  on  the  admissibility  of  the  marijuana  seized  should  likewise  be  ruled  upon.   2.  he  was  sleeping  in  his  house  and  was  awakened   only  when  the  policemen  handcuffed  him.  at  about  12:30  a.  and  attempted  to  flee.  They  saw  petitioner  selling  "something"  to  another  person.  respondents.  Rule  113  Section  5(a)  of  the  Rules   of  Court  provides:   A  peace  officer  or  a  private  person  may.         RODOLFO  ESPANO.  1991.  petitioner  posted  bail  and  the  trial  court  issued  his  order  of  release  on  July  29.  Petitioner  failed  to  show  that  Pat.  In  the  absence  of  such  ill  motive.  accused-­‐petitioner. The  petitioner  was  charged  under:  That  on  or  about  July  14.  Simplicio  Rivera.     HELD:     Court  finds  no  compelling  reason  sufficient  to  reverse  the  decisions  of  the  trial  and  appellate  courts.  or  where   the  accused  was  acting  suspiciously.  which  was  irrelevant  and  not  properly  identified.     ISSUE:     Whether  or  not  the  seizure  was  constitutional.  1991.

 likewise.  boxes.  Aragon  Street.  Aragon  Street.  1524.a.  1571.  Besarra.  the  first  and  second  floors  of  the  Shalimar  Building  located   at  No.A.  sale  and/or  distribution  of  counterfeit  REVICON  multivitamins.  of  Republic  Act  (R.  journals.  second.  1571.  The  respondents.  the  court  granted  the  application  and  issued  Search  Warrant  on  January  27.  v.  or  is  attempting  to   commit  an  offense.   Thus.  8203.  Special  Investigator  III  of  the  National  Bureau  of  Investigation  (NBI).  the  person  to  be  arrested  has  committed.  advertisements  and  other  paraphernalia  used  in  the  offering  for   sale.  when.  filed  an  application.  Cruz.  Cruz.  in  his  presence.  ledgers.”  They  contended   that  the  implementing  officers  of  the  NBI  conducted  their  search  at  the  first.  distribution  and/or  sales  of  counterfeit  REVICON  multivitamins  –  in  violation  of  Section   4(a).       A  representative  from  UNILAB.  for  the  issuance  of  a  search  warrant  concerning  the  first  and  second  floors  of  the   Shalimar  Building.  Manila)  occupied   and/or  used  by  Shalimar  Philippines.  is  a  defense  that  has  been  invariably   viewed  by  the  Court  with  disfavor  for  it  can  just  as  easily  be  concocted  but  difficult  to  prove.       .  wrappers.  asserted  that  the  NBI  officers  seized  Disudrin   and  Inoflox  products  which  were  not  included  in  the  list  of  properties  to  be  seized  in  the  search  warrant.  1571.  Aragon  Street  (formerly  No.  packages.  Sta.  that  such  premises  was   different  from  the  address  described  in  the  search  warrant.  the  "claim  of  a  'frame-­‐up'.  like  alibi.  Manila.  Lacson  Avenue.  2004.  testified  during  the  hearing  on  the  application  for  the  search  warrant.  third  and  fourth  floors  of  the   building.  the  respondents  filed  an  “Urgent  Motion  to  Quash  the  Search  Warrant  or  to  Suppress  Evidence.  official   receipts.  however.  Moreover.  and  Sales  invoices.  and  is  a  common  and   standard  line  of  defense  in  most  prosecutions  arising  from  violations  of  the  Dangerous  Drugs  Act.  in  the   Regional  Trial  Court  (RTC)  of  Manila.  purchase  orders  and  all  other  books  of  accounts  and  documents  used  in  recording  the   manufacture  and/or  importation."       United  Laboratories.  Sundry  items  such  as   tags.       Later.  Michael  Tome.  the  accused  has   the  burden  of  proving  that  he  was  not  at  the  scene  of  the  crime  at  the  time  of  its  commission  and  that  it  was  physically   impossible  for  him  to  be  there.  owned/operated  by  Ernesto  Isip.  and  for  it  to  prosper.       The  seizure  of  the  finished  and  unfinished  products  of  UNILAB.  in  relation  to  Section  8.  delivery  receipts.  Manila.  where  items  in  “open  display”  were  allegedly  found.  particularly  REVICON  multivitamins.  Sta.  labels.  Cruz.  is  actually  committing.  receptacles.  directing  any  police  officer  of   the  law  to  conduct  a  search  of  the  first  and  second  floors  of  the  Shalimar  Building  located  at  No.  located  at  No.  Inc.)  No.   Sta.  They  pointed  out.     NOTE:     The  Court  has  consistently  held  that  alibi  is  the  weakest  of  all  defenses.  Isip     461  SCRA  574       Facts:       Rolando  H.

 to  be  valid.   Nothing  is  left  to  the  discretion  of  the  officer  executing  the  warrant.  as  well   as  the  warrant  issued  by  the  court  itself.       The  respondents  objected  to  the  appearance  of  the  counsel  of  UNILAB.  namely.  and  were  not  apparently  incriminating  on   plain  view.  A  search  warrant  is  not   a  sweeping  authority  empowering  a  raiding  party  to  undertake  a  fishing  expedition  to  seize  and  confiscate  any  and  all   kinds  of  evidence  or  articles  relating  to  a  crime.       Held:       Search  Warrant       A  search  warrant.  Moreover.       UNILAB.  contending  that  the  latter  could  not  appear  for   the  People  of  the  Philippines.  they  insisted  that  the  items  seized  were  contained  in  boxes  at  the  time  of  the   seizure  at  No.   Disudrin  and  Inoflox.The  trial  court  issued  an  Order  granting  the  motion  of  the  respondents.  Disputing  the  claims  of  UNILAB.  and  that  the  seizure  of  the  items  was  justified  by  the  plain  view  doctrine.  were  not  those  described  in  the  search  warrant  and  issued  an  advisory  that  the  seized  articles   could  no  longer  be  admitted  in  evidence  against  the  respondents  in  any  proceedings.  Manila.  The  respondents  moved  that  the  motion  for  reconsideration  of  UNILAB  be  stricken  off  the   record.   and       (3)  Whether  the  search  conducted  by  the  NBI  officers  of  the  first  and  second  floors  of  the  Shalimar  building  and  the   seizure  of  the  sealed  boxes  which.  1524-­‐A.  in  collaboration  with  the  NBI  agents.  for  the  reconsideration  of   the  order.  must  particularly  describe  the  place  to  be  searched  and  the  things  to  be  seized.     .  Sta.  as  the  search  warrant  had  already   been  quashed.  filed  a  motion.  on  the  ground  that  the  things  seized.  were  valid.       Issues:       (1)  Whether  the  petitioner  is  the  proper  party  to  file  the  petition  at  bench.       (2)  Whether  it  was  proper  for  the  petitioner  to  file  the  present  petition  in  this  Court  under  Rule  45  of  the  Rules  of  Court.  the  seized  items  were  not  those  described  and  itemized  in  the  search  warrant  application.  through  the  Ureta  Law  Office.  contending  that  the  ground  used  by  the  court  in  quashing  the  warrant  was  not  that  invoked  by  the   respondents.  The  search  is  limited  in  scope  so  as  not  to  be  general  or  explanatory.  contained  Disudrin  syrup  and  Inoflox.   The  officers  of  the  law  are  to  seize  only  those  things  particularly  described  in  the  search  warrant.  when  opened.  Lacson  Avenue  corner  Aragon  Street.  Cruz.

 or  otherwise  subject  to  seizure.  The  warrant  specifically  authorized  the  officers  only  to  seize  “counterfeit   Revicon  multivitamins.       In  this  case.  to  prove  the  confluence  of  the  essential   requirements  for  the  doctrine  to  apply.  and  the  documents  used  in  recording.  It  is  a  recognition   of  the  fact  that  when  executing  police  officers  comes  across  immediately  incriminating  evidence  not  covered  by  the   warrant.  unconnected  with  a  search  directed  against  the  accused.  evidence  should  have  been  adduced  to  prove  the  existence  of  all  the  essential  requirements  for  the  application   of  the  doctrine  during  the  hearing  of  the  respondents’  motion  to  quash.  search  as  an  incident  to  a  lawful  arrest  or  some  other  legitimate  reason   for  being  present.  It  is  not  enough  to  prove  that  the  sealed  boxes  were  in  the  plain  view  of  the  NBI   agents.  manufacture  and/or  importation.       In  fact.  turned  out  to  contain  Inoflox  and  Disudrin.       Plain  View  Doctrine       The  doctrine  is  not  an  exception  to  the  warrant.  or  the  offering  for  sale.   distribution  and/or  sale.  the  seizure  by  the  officer  of  objects/articles/papers  not  described  in  the  warrant  cannot  be  presumed   as  plain  view.  when  opened  at  the  place   where  they  were  found.   Under  the  doctrine.  and  that  such  boxes  and  their  contents  were  incriminating   and  immediately  apparent.  It  must  be  stressed  that  only  the  NBI  agent/agents  who  enforced  the  warrant  had  personal   knowledge  whether  the  sealed  boxes  and  their  contents  thereof  were  incriminating  and  that  they  were  immediately   .  and  (c)  it  must  be  immediately  apparent  to  the  police  that  the  items  they   observe  may  be  evidence  of  a  crime.  hot  pursuit.  finished  or  unfinished.  or  at  the  very  least.  they  should  not  be  required  to  close  their  eyes  to  it.”  The  implementing  officers   failed  to  find  any  counterfeit  Revicon  multivitamins.  and  instead  seized  sealed  boxes  which.  The  doctrine  may  not  be  used  to  extend  a   general  exploratory  search  from  one  object  to  another  until  something  incriminating  at  last  emerges.       It  was  thus  incumbent  on  the  NBI  agents  and  the  petitioner  to  prove  their  claim  that  the  items  were  seized   based  on  the  plain  view  doctrine.  It  would  be  needless  to  require  the  police  to  obtain  another  warrant.  during  the  hearing  of  the   NBI  and  the  petitioner’s  motion  for  reconsideration.  sale  and/or  distribution  of  the  said  vitamins.  However.  regardless  of  whether  it  is  evidence  of  the  crime  they  are   investigating  or  evidence  of  some  other  crime.  The  State  must  adduce  evidence.  there  is  no  invasion  of  a  legitimate  expectation  of  privacy  and  there  is  no  search  within  the  meaning   of  the  Constitution.  namely:  (a)  the  executing  law  enforcement  officer  has  a  prior  justification  for  an   initial  intrusion  or  otherwise  properly  in  a  position  from  which  he  can  view  a  particular  order.  or  any  of   the  petitioner’s  representative  who  was  present  at  the  time  of  the  enforcement  of  the  warrant  to  prove  that  the   enforcing  officers  discovered  the  sealed  boxes  inadvertently.  It  merely  serves  to  supplement  the  prior  justification  –  whether   it  be  a  warrant  for  another  object.   Objects.  articles  or  papers  not  described  in  the  warrant  but  on  plain  view  of  the  executing  officer  may  be  seized   by  him.  (b)  the  officer  must   discover  incriminating  evidence  inadvertently.  Disudrin  and/or  Inoflox  were  not  listed  in  the  search  warrant  issued  by  the  court  a  quo  as  among   the  properties  to  be  seized  by  the  NBI  agents.  contraband.  testimonial  or  documentary.  the  petitioner  and  the  NBI  failed  to  present  any  of  the  NBI  agents  who  executed  the  warrant.

 L-­‐27360.  However.  February  28.  when  the  restraining  order  was  received  by  herein  petitioners.     -­‐  After  many  pleadings  and  counterclaims.  the  Bureau  of  Customs   actually  seized  the  goods  in  question  and  so  from  that  date  the  Bureau  of  Customs  acquired  jurisdiction  over  the  goods   for  the  purposes  of  the  enforcement  of  the  tariff  and  customs  laws.     .  she  argued  that  the  goods  were  confiscated   by  the  police  without  a  valid  search  warrant  and  prayed  that  the  good  confiscated  to  not  be  opened  and  to  be  returned   to  her.       Papa.  among  others.  v.  There  is  even  no  showing  that  the  NBI  agents  knew  the  contents  of  the  sealed  boxes  before  they  were   opened.  Ermita.  Manila  and  found  that  the  two  trucks  were  loaded  with  nine  bales  of  goods.R.   would  be  released  the  following  day  from  the  customs  zone  of  the  port  of  Manila  and  loaded  on  two  trucks.  that  the  Bureau  of  Customs  acquires  exclusive   jurisdiction  over  imported  goods.  the  Court  finds  and  so  hold  that  the  petitioner  and  the  NBI  failed  to  prove  the  essential  requirements  for   the  application  of  the  plain  view  doctrine.  to  the  exclusion  of  the  regular  courts.  G.       ISSUE:   -­‐  Whether  or  not  the  police  had  probable  cause  to  make  the  warrantless  search  and  seizure  upon  the  goods  of  the   respondent  using  the  Tariff  and  Custom  Code  as  a  basis.  Hence.   Petitioner  Alagao  conducted  surveillance  at  gate  No.  allegedly  misdeclared  and  undervalued.  1  of  the  customs  zone  and  when  trucks  left  gate  No.  elements  of  the  counter-­‐intelligence  unit  went  after  the  trucks  and  intercepted  them  at  the  Agrifina   Circle.  Mago  filed  a  petition  for  the  release  of  goods  which  was  granted  by  the   respondent  judge.  from  the  moment  the  goods  are   actually  in  its  possession  or  control.     FACTS:   -­‐  Petitioner  Martin  Alagao.  et  al.  and  that  she  hired  the   trucks  from  Lanopa  to  transport  said  goods  to  her  residence.  Mago  and  Jarencio.  for  the  purposes  of  enforcement  of  the  customs  laws.  an   assistant  city  fiscal  and  a  representative  of  herein  respondent  Remedios  Mago.  Furthermore.  having  received  a   reliable  information  to  the  effect  that  a  certain  shipment  of  personal  effects.  even  if  no  warrant  of  seizure  or  detention  had  previously  been  issued  by  the   Collector  of  Customs  in  connection  with  seizure  and  forfeiture  proceedings.  No.     -­‐  By  orders  of  petitioner  Ricardo  Papa.  head  of  the  counter-­‐intelligence  unit  of  the  Manila  Police  Department.  1968.apparent.  22  SCRA  857.  and  were  seized  on   instructions  of  the  Chief  of  Police.  therefore.     -­‐  Respondent  Judge  Hilarion  Jarencio  issued  an  order  ex  parte  restraining  herein  petitioners  from  opening  the  nine  bales   in  question.       HELD:   -­‐  Yes.  In  the  present  case.     -­‐  Mago  and  Lanopa  filed  with  the  Court  of  First  Instance  of  Manila  a  petition  for  mandamus  with  restraining  order  or   preliminary  injunction  alleging.  1  at  about  4:30   in  the  afternoon.  the  Supreme  Court  held  that  It  is  the  settled  rule.  some  bales  had  already  been   opened  by  the  examiners  of  the  Bureau  of  Customs  in  the  presence  of  officials  of  the  Manila  Police  Department.       In  sum  then.  Chief  of  Police  of  Manila  and  a  duly  deputized  agent  of  the  Bureau  of  Customs.  the  petitioner  filed  an  action  for  prohibition  and  certiorari  with  preliminary  injunction  before   the  Supreme  Court.  that  Mago  was  the  owner  of  the  goods  seized.

 1989  Sgt.  While  searching  house  the  agents  also   found  a  striped  plastic  bag  containing  marijuana  in  the  kitchen.  seizures.  it  has  been  held  that  the  guaranty  of  freedom   from  unreasonable  searches  and  seizures  is  construed  as  recognizing  a  necessary  difference  between  a  search  of  a   dwelling  house  or  other  structure  in  respect  of  which  a  search  warrant  may  readily  be  obtained  and  a  search  of  a  ship.  1989  packet.00  as  marked  money  in  order  to  obtain  again  from  the  appellant  the  marijuana.  wagon.  and  #3  the  contents  of  the  striped  plastic  bag)  were  positive  for  marijuana.   warehouse.  Ani  saw  4  persons  inside  the  house.  Amado  Ani.  Upon  entering  the  appellant’s  house  the  NARCOM  agents  including   Sgt.  The  3  witnesses  presented  were  Sgt.  1990  by  the  RTC  of   Zamboanga  City.  Amado  Ani.  However  the  marked  money  was  not  found  since  the   appellant  Musa  claimed  that  he  gave  the  money  to  his  wife  who  later  fled  the  scene.  Anderson   confirmed  that  the  3  marijuana  specimens  obtained  in  the  buy  bust  operation  (#1  Dec.  Jr’s  signal  the  NARCOM  agents   stormed  the  appellant’s  house  and  arrested  him.   Facts:     The  appellant  Mari  Musa  appeals  for  a  reversal  of  the  decision  dated  on  August  31.  The  Code  authorizes  persons  having   police  authority  under  Section  2203  of  the  Tariff  and  Customs  Code  to  enter.  on  1:30   P.  1989.  Jesus  Belarga.  Ricardo  G.  Jr  of  the  the  Narcotics   Command  of  Zamboanga  City  or  NARCOM.  among  others.     ****Furthermore.  search  and  examine  any  vessel  or  aircraft   and  any  trunk.  T/Sgt.  store  or  building.  ven  if  there  was  a  valid  warrant.  The  information  against  the  appellant  was  filed  on  December  15.  December  14.     Petition  GRANTED.  13.  1990  the  appellant  pleaded  not  guilty.  articles  or  other  movable  property  when  the   same  may  be  subject  to  forfeiture  or  liable  for  any  fine  imposed  under  customs  and  tariff  laws.  respondent  Mago  did  not  even  mentioned  or  complained  about  the  search  but  instead  complained   about  the  interception  without  warrant.  1989.00  and  later  present  it  to  his  team  leader  T/Sgt.  Papa.  Amado  Ani.  not  being  a  dwelling  house.  On  December  13.  Jr  was  instructed  to  go  to  Suterville.  6425  otherwise  known   as  the  Dangerous  Drugs  Act  of  1972.  or  automobile  for  contraband  goods.  The  next  day.  1989.  and   arrests.    vs.  #2  The  2   packets  on  dec.  where  it  is  not  practicable  to  secure  a  warrant  because  the   vehicle  can  be  quickly  moved  out  of  the  locality  or  jurisdiction  in  which  the  warrant  must  be  sought.M.       PEOPLE  OF  THE  PHILIPPINES.  The  trial  court  later  found  Mari  Musa  y  Hantatalu  guilty   .  package.  Jesus  Belarga  also  of  NARCOM.  could.  pass  through  or  search  any  land.  having  been  deputized  in  writing  by  the  Commissioner  of   Customs.  inclosure.  and  it  was  his  duty  to  make  seizure.  and  Athena  Elisa  P.  accused-­‐appellant.     The  Tariff  and  Customs  Code  does  not  require  said  warrant  in  the  instant  case.  for  the  purposes  of  the  enforcement  of  the  customs  and  tariff  laws.  Later  Mrs.  On  January   11.  Zamboanga   City  which  was  the  residence  of  the  appellant  in  order  to  buy  from  the  appellant  a  newspaper-­‐wrapped  marijuana   packet  for  P10.  or  envelope  or  any  person  on  board.  effect  searches.  14.  plaintiff-­‐appellee.  Athena  Elisa  P.  Pablo  L.   The  appellant  gave  2  newspaper-­‐wrapped  marijuana  packets  and  on  Sgt.  beast  or   person  suspected  of  holding  or  conveying  any  dutiable  or  prohibited  article  introduced  into  the  Philippines  contrary  to   law.   motorboat.  Sgt.  Branch  XII  finding  him  guilty  of  selling  marijuana  in  violation  of  Republic  Act  No.  of  any  cargo.   The  Solicitor  General  for  plaintiff-­‐appellee.  Jr  was  given  P20.  Amado  Ani.  Anderson  of   Regional  Command  or  RECOM.  Murillo  for  accused-­‐appellant.  and  also  to  inspect.  without  mentioning  the  need  of  a  search  warrant  in  said  cases.  3  family  members  and  the  manicurists.The  Chief  of  the  Manila  Police  Department.  The  appellant   Musa  claimed  that  while  he  was  in  detention  he  was  tortured.  MARI  MUSA  y  HANTATALU.  or  to  stop  and  search  and  examine  any  vehicle.

 Diokno  case  rules  that  evidence   obtained  in  violation  of  the  freedom  from  reasonable  searches  and  seizures  is  inadmissible.  Art  II  of  Rep.  Second  the  appellant  also  had  doubts  on  the   credibility  of  Sgt.  without  a   search  warrant.  Dizon   ruling  allows  for  an  exemption  to  the  necessity  for  a  search  warrant  which  is  the  right  of  search  and  seizure  as  an   incident  to  a  lawful  arrest.  Ani  were  talking.beyond  reasonable  doubt  for  selling  marijuana  in  pursuant  to  Sec.  The  court  however  could  not  give  credit  to   the  claim  of  the  appellant  since  they  are  with  contradictions  and  tainted  with  inaccuracies.  In  addition  he  claimed  that  T/Sgt.  Overall  the  court  dismissed   the  grounds  of  the  appellant  and  held.  The  plain  view  doctrine  however  is  inapplicable  in  the  case  since  the  2  requisites  of  the   .  The  appellant  is   sentenced  to  life  imprisonment  and  to  pay  the  fine  of  P20.  Ani  because  they  do  not  know  each  other.  Paco  the  presence  of  family  and  friends  may  at  times   camouflage  the  commission  of  the  crime.  The  court  cited  that  in  People  v.  6425.  Ani.  but  their   agreement  and  the  acts  constituting  the  sale  and  delivery  of  the  marijuana.  Belarga  could  not  be  a  credible  witness  since   he  was  90  to  100  meters  from  where  he  (appellant)  and  Sgt.  Third  the  appellant  claimed  that  there  was  no  witness  who  could  positively   identify  him  selling  marijuana  to  Sgt.  for  the  first  issue  the  appellant  tried  to  raise  several  claims  stating  that  his  arrest  was  without  basis.  the  plastic  containing  marijuana  may  be  admitted  as  evidence.  —  A  person  lawfully  arrested  may  be   searched  for  dangerous  weapons  or  anything  which  may  be  used  as  proof  of  the  commission  of  an  offense.  4.  However  there  are  2  requisites  that  must  be  met:  1)  prior  justification  for  search.  First  the   appellant  claimed  that  he  could  not  have  transacted  with  Sgt.  California  the  Plain  View  Doctrine  allows  for  warrantless  search  and  seizure.  In  the  second  issue  the  appellant  assailed   the  seizure  and  admission  as  evidence  of  a  striped  plastic  bag  containing  marijuana  which  the  NARCOM  agents  found  in   the  appellant's  kitchen.  Also  the  presence  of  other  people  aside  from  the  buyer  and  seller  will  not  necessarily  prevent  the   consummation  of  the  illegal  sale.  000.     Also  in  Ker  v.  as  an  incident  to  a   suspect's  lawful  arrest.  However  the  Alvero  v.  The  court   however  found  the  appellant’s  claim  to  be  without  merit.  12  (Rule  126.     Yes. Whether  or  not  the  appellant  has  been  illegally  arrested?   2. Whether  or  not  the  white  plastic  bag  found  in  the  kitchen  of  the  appellant  was  correctly  admitted  as  evidence?     Held:     No.  thus:   Sec.  and  2)  and  the   object  must  be  in  plain  view.  However  the  court  ruled  that  place  of  the  commission  of  the  crime  of  selling  prohibited  drugs   is  not  crucial.  The  Court  ruled  that  what  matters  is  not  the  existing   familiarity  between  the  buyer  and  the  seller  since  the  parties  to  the  transaction  usually  may  be  strangers.  Act  No.  Ani’s  testimony  since  it  was  impossible  for  him  (Mari  Musa)  to  sell  marijuana  while  his  family  and  the   manicurist  were  present.   Issue:     1.      Furthermore  Rule  126.  Section  12  of  the  Rules  of  Court)  .  The  constitution  in  line  with  the  doctrine  in  the  Stonehill  v.  Section  12  of  the  Rules  of  Court  expressly  authorizes  a  warrantless  search  and  seizure   incident  to  a  lawful  arrest.Search  incident  to  lawful  arrest.00  and  without  subsidiary  imprisonment.

 4.       Garcia  came  to  know  Atty.  While  in  custody  of  the  police  officer.  12.  RTC  found  the m  to  be  unsupported  with  evidences.  solitary.  RTC  rejected  the  disclaimer  of  Garcia  of  his  own  confession  as  such  disclaimer  was  an   11th  hour  concoction  to  exculpate  himself  and  his  co-­‐accused.  Garcia  was  apprehended  in  the  front  of  Golden  Gate  Subdivision.  Labita  arrived.00  belonging  to  the  CBP(now  BSP)  as  represented  by  Labita  to  the  damage  and  prejudice  of  the  latter.       At  the  safe  house.  Garcia  gave  3  separate  statements  admitting  his   guilt  and  participation  in  the  crime  charged.  unerringly  led  to  the  conclusion  th at  they  had  conspired  to  pilfer  the  said  notes.  steal  and  carry  away  punctured  curreny  notes  due  for  shredding  in  the  total  amount  o f  Php  194.  while  he  was   waiting  for  a  passenger  bus  on  his  way  to  BSP.  Except  for  the  plastic  bag  containing  marijuana  found  in  the  kitchen  the  other   evidences  presented  are  enough  to  convict  the  accused-­‐appellant  Mari  Musa.  incomun .   People  vs  Peralta  (searches  and  seizures)   Facts  :     An  information  was  filed  charging  appellants  and  and  their  co-­‐accusedof  qualified  theft  alledging  that  in  the  morning  of  Nov   4.  contend  that  these  pieces  of  evidence  are  inadmissibl e.   The  appeal  of  the  accused-­‐appellant  is  dismissed  and  the  ruling  of  the  RTC  is  affirmed.  Section  12  (1)  and  (2)  of  the  1987  Constitution.  He  did  not  identify  them  but  he   was  instructed  to  put  his  hands  on  the  shoulders  of  each  while  Labita  took  a  picture  of  them.    If  the  person  cannot  afford  the  services  of  counsel.  they  alleged  that  the  accused-­‐appellant  Garcia  served  as  a  driver  of  the  ar mored  car  of  the  BSP.  Sanchez  on  Nov  4  when  Coronel  introduced  him  as  his  lawyer.  It  was  also  alleged  that  Garcia  only  signed  such  statements  due  to  Coronel's    warning  that  if  he  did  not  do  so.  He  was  forced  to  ride  in  a  car  while  someone  return  his  things  in  his  pocket.190.  In  the  car  he  heard  that  he  will  be  salvaged  if  he  would  not  tell  the  t ruth.  who  gave  the  answers  appearing  in  Garcia's  alleged  3  sworn  statement.   Held:   RE  SWORN  STATEMENT   The  trial  court  convicted  appellants  mainly  on  the  strength  of  the  three  confessions  given  by  Garcia  and  the  three  perforated  P1 00  currency  notes  confiscated  from  him  upon  his  arrest.  preferably  of  his  own  choice.  a  person  who  identified  himself  as  a  police  officer  arrested  accused-­‐appellant  Garcia  while  waiting  f or  a  passenger  bus  without  warrant  and  forced  him  to  ride  a  car.  Las  Pinas  City.  While  he  was  dragged  out  of  the  car  someone  frisks  his  pocket.  which  provides  thus:   “Sec.  1992  in  the  city  of  Manila  the  accused  take.   Appellants  aver  that  the  alleged  three  Sworn  Statements  of  Garcia  were  obtained  without  the  assistance  of  counsel  in  violation   of  his  rights  under  Article  III.  Then  he  was  brought  blindfolded  and  handcuffed  t o  the  office  of  Dimagmaliw  at  the  Western  Police  District  where  he  was  interviewed.    Appellants.  force.       It  was  actually  Labita  and  not  Garcia.  he  was   brought  to  the  cell  of  the  Theft  and  Robbery  Section  of  WPD  where  his  co-­‐accused  were  also  inside.  With  regards  to  the  torture  and  coerced  confession  0.  Coronel  took  the  statement  of  Labita.  he  must  be  provided  with  one.  intimidation.  On  Nov.     On  the  basis  of  the  complaint.  however  he  did  not  agree  to  have   him  as  his  lawyer.  It  was  the  first  and  last  time  he  saw  him  and  he  was  not  present  when  Atty.   “(2)  No  torture.    Secret  detention  places.  violence.object  to  be  in  plain  view  are  missing.       However  the  defense  has  its  version  of  the  facts.  he  will  again  b e  tortured.  however.  or  any  other  means  which  vitiate  the  free  will  shall  be  used  against  him.  interrupting  the  interview  and  in structed  SPO4  Coronel  to  get  Garcia's  wallet  wherein  they  found  3  pieces  of  perforated  bill.  Sanchez  signed  the  alleged  sworn  stat ements.  (1)    Any  person  under  investigation  for  the  commission  of  an  offense  shall  have  the  right  to  be  informed  of  his  right  to  remain  silent  and  to  have  competent  a nd  independent  counsel.       RTC  favored  the  prosecution  and  ruled  that  the  coordinated  acts  of  the  accused  wherein  the  co-­‐accused  handed  to  Garcia  t he  perforated  bills  which  were  then  loaded  to  the  armored  van  and  delivered  it  to  anothe  person.  He  also  identified  the  other  named  accused  as  his  cohorts  and  accomplices.Nov  5.    These  rights  cannot  be  waive d  except  in  writing  and  in  the  presence  of  counsel.  the  policemen  asked  him  if  he  knew  his  co-­‐accused  and  when  he  denied  he  was  tortured  until  he  cooper ated.   ISSUE  :     Whether  or  not  the  lower  court  erred  in  admitting  in  evidence  the  alleged  3  sworn  statements  of  accused  appellant  Garcia  and  the  al leged  3  pieces  of  100  pesos  perforated  notes.  threat.

”    Hence.  De  Villa   Facts:   On  20  January  1987.  were  still  admitted  in  evidence  by  the  RTC  on  the  ground  that  Garcia  had  expressed  in  writing  his   willingness  and  readiness  to  give  the  Sworn  Statements  without  the  assistance  of  counsel.  he  had  not  committed.  vigilant  and  independent   counse l.  In  the  present  case.    Neither  was  he  acting  in  a  manner  that  would  engender  a  reasonable  ground  to  suspect  that  he  was  committing  a   crime.    At  the  time  of  his  arrest.    The  question  of  whether  he  was  tortured  becomes  m oot.  that  this  waiver  is  limited  to  the  arrest.  like  that  which  the  trial  court  relied  upon  in  the  present  case.    Without  the  assistance  of  a  counsel .  it  follows  that  the  subsequent  search  was  similarly  illegal.  they  are  ina dmissible  in  evidence.  (4)  customs  search.    The  signature  of  t he  latter  on  those  documents  was  affixed  after  the  word  “SAKSI.  ( 3)  search  of  a  moving  motor  vehicle.  and  that  the  former  had  signed  the  Sworn  Statement  only  as   a  witness.  not  having  raised  the  matter  before  entering  his  plea.   The  Constitution  proscribes  unreasonable  searches  and  seizures[18]  of  whatever  nature.   RE  PERFORATED  NOTES   Appellants  contend  that  the  three  P100  perforated  currency  notes  (Exhibits  “N”  to  “N-­‐2”)  allegedly  confiscated  from  Garcia  afte r  his  arrest  were  “fruits  of  the  poisonous  tree”  and.  THE  NATIONAL  CAPITAL  REGION  DISTRICT  COMMAND  (NCRDC)  was  activated  pursuant  to  Letter  of   Instruction  02/87  of  the  Philippine  General  Headquarters.”  Moreover.  while  he  had  merely  been  waiting  for  a  passenger  bus  after  being  pointed  out  by  the  C ash  Department  personnel  of  the  BSP.  hence.   The  written  confessions.  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  an  effective  territorial  defense.   A  waiver  in  writing.  Garcia  was  not  lawfully  arrested.    In  such  case.  he  is  deemed  to  have  w aived  the  illegality  of  his  arrest.    None  of  the  circumstances  justifying  an  arrest  without  a  warrant  under  Section  5  of  Rule  113  of  the  Rules  of  Court  was  prese nt.  the  lawyer’s  role  cannot  be  reduced  to  being  that  of  a  mere  witness  to  the  signing  of  a  pre-­‐prepared  confession.     Hence.  the  remaining  evidence  would  be  utte rly  inadequate  to  overturn  the  constitutional  presumption  of  innocence.   The  right  to  counsel  has  been  written  into  our  Constitution  in  order  to  prevent  the  use  of  duress  and  other  undue  influence  in  extrac ting  confessions  from  a  suspect  in  a  crime.  inadmissible  in  evidence.  with  the  mission  of  conducting  security  operations  within   its  area  of  responsibility  and  peripheral  areas.    The  basic  law  specifically  requires  that  any  waiver  of  this  right  must  be  made  in  writing  a nd  executed  in  the  presence  of  a  counsel.  but  also  advise  and  assist  the  accused  continuously  from  the  time  the  firs t  question  is  asked  by  the  investigating  officer  until  the  signing  of  the  confession.  (5)  stop  and  frisk  situations.   .  (2)  seizure  of  evidence  in  plain  view.  AFP.”   It  is  clear  from  a  plain  reading  of  the  three  extrajudicial  confessions  that  Garcia  was  not  assisted  by  Atty.  however.  even  if  it  ind icated  compliance  with  the  constitutional  rights  of  the  accused.Without  the  extrajudicial  confession  and  the  perforated  currency  notes.    Without  a  judicial  warrant.   The  police  arrested  Garcia  without  a  warrant.    Nonetheless.    The  lower  court’s  action  is  manifest  error .  these  are  allow ed  only  under  the  following  exceptional  circumstances:  (1)  a  search  incident  to  a  lawful  arrest.  The  accused  is  entitled  to  effective.  however.  he  appeared  in  court  and  categorically  testified  that  he   had  not  assisted  Garcia  when  the  latter  was  investigated  by  the  police.         Valmonte  vs.  and  was  not  about  to  c ommit  any  crime.  or  other  similar  forms  of  detention  are  prohibited.   Hence.  hence.    Note.    It  does  not  extend  to  the  search  made  as  an   incident  thereto  or  to  the  subsequent  seizure  of  evidence  allegedly  found  during  the  search.  Any  evidence  obtained  in  violation   of  the  constitutional  provision  is  legally  inadmissible  in  evidence  under  the  exclusionary  rule.  is  not  enough.  Sanchez.icado.  and  (6)  consented  search.  the  waiver  has  no  evidentiary  relevance.[19]   Where  the  arrest  was  incipiently  illegal.  the  perforated  P10 0  currency  notes  were  obtained  as  a  result  of  a  search  made  without  a  warrant  subsequent  to  an  unlawful  arrest.The  Constitution  states  that  “[a]ny  confession  or  admission  obtained  in  violation  of  [the  af orecited  Section  shall  be  inadmissible  in  evidence  x  x  x.  the  trial  court  was  in  error  when  it  admitted  in  evidence  the  uncoun seled  confessions  of  Garcia  and  convicted  appellants  on  the  basis  thereof.  counsel  must  not  only  ascertain  that  the  confession  is  voluntarily  made  and  t hat  the  accused  understands  its  nature  and  consequences.  was  not  committing.

 are  part  of  the  price  we  pay  for  an  orderly  society  and  a   peaceful  community.   As   a   result   of   the   petitioner's   act   of   recording   event.   Finally.   entitled   "An   Act   to   prohibit   and   penalize   wire   tapping   and   other   related   violations   of   private   communication.  4200  and  the  trial  court   granted  the  Motion  to  Quash.A.  No  proof  has  been  presented  before  the  Court  to  show   that.  considering  that  their  cars  and  vehicles  are  being   subjected  to  regular  searches  and  check-­‐ups.  93833.  The  setting  up  of  the  questioned   checkpoints  may  be  considered  as  a  security  measure  to  enable  the  NCRDC  to  pursue  its  mission  of  establishing  effective   territorial  defense  and  maintaining  peace  and  order  for  the  benefit  of  the  public.   and   other   purposes.  the  manning  of  checkpoints  by  the  military  is   susceptible  of  abuse  by  the  men  in  uniform.  because  of  the  installation  of  said  checkpoints.  Soccoro  Ramirez.  Not  all   searches  and  seizures  are  prohibited.  capricious  and   whimsical  disposition  of  the  military  manning  the  checkpoints.  a  supply   officer  of  the  Municipality  of  Valenzuela.  As  part  of  its  duty  to  maintain  peace  and  order.  in  the  same  manner  that  all  governmental  power  is  susceptible  of  abuse.  No.  the   residents  of  Valenzuela  are  worried  of  being  harassed  and  of  their  safety  being  placed  at  the  arbitrary.  in  the  course  of  their  routine  checks.  in  the  interest  of  public  security.  economic  and  political  development   of  the  National  Capital  Region.  the  petition  is  DISMISSED.   private   respondent  alleged  that  the  said  act  of  secretly  taping  the  confrontation  was  illegal  and  filed  a  criminal  case  before  the   Regional   Trial   Court   of   Pasay   City   for   violation   of   Republic   Act   4200.  the  checkpoints  during  these   abnormal  times.  or  threatened  to  be  infringed.  and  providing  an  atmosphere  conducive  to  the  social.True.  illegal.  particularly  a  violation  of  R.  1995   FACTS:  This  petition  involves  a  recording  by  the  petitioner.  indeed.   Garcia.  Bulacan.  Petitioners  aver  that.  the  military.   Issue:   WON  the  installation  of  CHECKPOINTS  violates  the  right  of  the  people  against  unreasonable  searches  and  seizures   Held:   Petitioner's  concern  for  their  safety  and  apprehension  at  being  harassed  by  the  military  manning  the  checkpoints  are   not  sufficient  grounds  to  declare  the  checkpoints  per  se.  Between  the  inherent  right  of  the   state  to  protect  its  existence  and  promote  public  welfare  and  an  individual’s  right  against  a  warrantless  search  w/c  is.maintaining  peace  and  order.  on  17  July  1988.  Benjamin  Parpon.   But.  The  constitutional  right  against  unreasonable  searches  and  seizures   is  a  personal  right  invocable  only  by  those  whose  rights  have  been  infringed.  Metro  Manila.  Those  which  are  reasonable  are  not  forbidden.  Their  alleged  fear  for  their  safety  increased  when.  was  gunned  down  allegedly  in  cold  blood  by  the  members  of  the   NCRDC  manning  the  checkpoint  along  McArthur  Highway  at  Malinta.   4200   refers   to   a   the   taping   of   a   communication   by   a   person  other  than   a  participant  to  the  communication."   petitioner   filed   a   Motion   to   Quash   on  the  ground  that  the  facts  charged  do  not  constitute  an  offense.  reasonably  conducted.  of  her  conversation  with  the  herein  private   respondent   Ester   S.  discomfort  and  even  irritation  to  the  citizen.  without  the  benefit  of  a  search  warrant   and/or  court  order.  September  28.   however.  The  private  respondent  filed  a  Petition  for  Review  on  Certiorari  respondent  Court  of   Appeals   promulgated   its   assailed   Decision   declaring   the   trial   court's   order   null   and   void   then   the   petitioner   filed   a   .     Section  3  –  Privacy  of  Communication  and  Correspond   Ramirez  vs  CA  GR.A.  agreeing  with  petitioner  that  (1)  the  facts  charged  do  not  constitute  an  offense  under  R.  the  former  should  prevail.  committed  specific  violations  of  petitioners''  rights   against  unlawful  search  and  seizure  of  other  rights.  Checkpoints  may  not  also  be  regarded   as  measures  to  thwart  plots  to  destabilize  the  govt.  when  conducted  within  reasonable  limits.  military  and  police  checkpoints  in  Metro  Manila  were  temporarily  lifted  and  a  review  and   refinement  of  the  rules  in  the  conduct  of  the  police  and  military  manning  the  checkpoints  was  ordered  by  the  National   Capital  Regional  Command  Chief  and  the  Metropolitan  Police  Director.  the  NCRDC  installed  checkpoints  in   various  parts  of  Valenzuela.   and   that   (2)   the   violation   punished   by   R.  at  the  cost  of  occasional  inconvenience.  at  dawn  of  9  July  1988.  for  ignoring  and/or  refusing  to  submit   himself  to  the  checkpoint  and  for  continuing  to  speed  off  inspire  of  warning  shots  fired  in  the  air.A.  10   WHEREFORE.  especially  at  night  or  at  dawn.   The   conversation   was   recorded   for   the   purpose   of   filing   a   civil   action   against   the   private   respondent   and   uses   such   conversation   as   a   proof.  Valenzuela.   4200.

 4200i.   Moreover   in   enacting   the   said   law   in   conflict.   to   secretly   overhear.   legislative   intent   is   determined   principally   from   the   language   of   a   statute.  4200  penalizes  the  taping  of  a  “private  communication."   clearly   and   unequivocally   makes   it   illegal   for   any   person.  as  in  a  conversation.  Because  the  law.A.  or  signifies  the  "process  by  which  meanings  or  thoughts  are  shared  between  individuals   through   a   common   system   of   symbols.  Mendoza       Facts:   This  is  a  petition  to  review  the  decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals.  or  however  otherwise  described.  COURT  OF  APPEALS   G.  her  act  of  secretly  taping  her  conversation  with  private  respondent  were  not  illegal  under  the  said   act.  4200  penalizes  are  the  acts  of  secretly  overhearing.    ULUETA  VS.  intercepting  or  recording  private  communications   by  means  of  the  devices  enumerated  therein.     ISSUE:  Whether  the  party  sought  to  be  penalized  by  the  said  act  ought  to  be  a  party  other  than  or  different  from  those   involved  in  the  private  communication.   4200   does   not   include   "private   conversations"   narrows   the   ordinary   meaning   of   the   word   "communication"   to   a   point   of   absurdity.   put   to   rest   by   the   fact   that   the   terms   "conversation"   and   "communication"   were   interchangeably  used  by  Senator  Tañada.  "Even  a  (person)  privy  to  a  communication  who   records  his  private  conversation  with  another  without  the  knowledge  of  the  latter  (will)  qualify  as  a  violator"  under  this   provision   of   R.A.  The  respondent  Court  of  Appeals  correctly  concluded.   intercept."  provides:   Sec.  The  mere  allegation  that  an  individual  made  a  secret  recording  of  a  private   communication  by  means  of  a  tape  recorder  would  suffice  to  constitute  an  offense  under  Section  1  of  R.Motion  for  Reconsideration  but  it  was   denied.  The  decision  appealed  from  is  AFFIRMED.   HELD:  First.   Tanada   “This   is   a   complete   ban   on   tape   recorded   conversations   taken   without   the   authorization   of   all   the  parties.   or   by   using   any   other   device   or   arrangement.   "   An   Act   to   Prohibit   and   Penalized   Wire   Tapping   and   Other   Related   Violations   of   Private   Communication   and   Other   Purposes.  No.”  not  a  “private  conversation”  and   that  consequently.  107383.   Where   the   language   of   a   statute   is   clear   and   unambiguous.  affirming  the  decision  of  the  Regional  Trial  Court  of  Manila  (Branch   X)  which  ordered  petitioner  to  return  documents  and  papers  taken  by  her  from  private  respondent's  clinic  without  the  latter's   knowledge  and  consent.  the  instant  petition  is  hereby  DENIED.   petitioner's   contention   that   the   phrase   "private   communication"   in   Section   1   of   R.  meaning  "to  share  or  to  impart.   the   law   is   applied   according   to   its   express   terms.   4200   entitled.A.   4200   entitled.  1.  not  being  authorized  by  all  the  parties  to  any  private  communication  or   spoken   word.A.   Any   doubts   about   the   legislative   body's   meaning   of   the   phrase   "private   communication"   are.   furthermore.  Petitioner  vigorously  argues  that  Republic  Act  4200  does  not  apply  to  the   taping  of  a  private  conversation  by  one  of  the  parties  to  the  conversation.   The   law   makes   no   distinction   as   to   whether   the   party  sought  to  be  penalized  by  the  statute  ought  to  be  a  party  other  than  or  different  from  those  involved  in  the  private   communication.   communication   connotes   the   act   of   sharing   or   imparting   signification.  She  contends  that  the  provision  merely  refers   to   the   unauthorized   taping   of   a   private   conversation   by   a   party   other   than   those   involved   in   the   communication."  In  its  ordinary  signification.”  R.R.       .   "   An   Act   to   Prohibit   and   Penalized   Wire   Tapping   and   Other   Related   Violations   of   Private   Communication  and  Other  Purposes.   The   petitioner  also  agues  that  R.A.  February  20.  1996       Petitioner:  Cecilia  Zulueta   Respondents:  Court  of  Appeals  and  Alfredo  Martin   Ponente:  J.   the   intent   of   the   Act   was   that   permission   must   be   sought   from   all   parties   in   the   conversation.A.                                                                                                                             i   Section   1   of   R.   The   word   communicate  comes  from  the  latin  word  “communicare”.  It  shall  be  unlawfull  for  any  person.  unauthorized  tape  recording  of  private  conversations  or  communications  taken  either  by  the  parties  themselves   or   by   third   persons.   4200.   Section   1   of   R.   according   to   Sen.   thus.  or  record  such  communication  or  spoken  word  by  using  a  device  commonly  known  as  a  dictaphone  or   dictagraph  or  detectaphone  or  walkie-­‐talkie  or  tape  recorder.   our   lawmakers   indeed   contemplated   to   make   illegal.A.  Finally.   communication   connotes   the   act   of   sharing   or   imparting.   to   tap   any   wire   or   cable.  as  applied  to  the  case  at  bench  is  clear  and  unambiguous  and   leaves  us  with  no  discretion.   not   authorized   by   all   the   parties   to   any   private   communication   to   secretly   record   such   communication   by   means   of   a   tape   recorder.

  Inter-­‐Agency   Coordinating   Committee.  1996  and  reads  as  follows:   ADOPTION  OF  A  NATIONAL  COMPUTERIZED   IDENTIFICATION  REFERENCE  SYSTEM   WHEREAS.  with  the  following  as  members:   .   Sec.  308  was  issued  by  President  Fidel  V.   1.  forcibly  opened  the   drawers  and  cabinet  in  her  husband's  clinic  and  took  157  documents  consisting  of  private  correspondence  between  Dr.  Neither  husband  nor  wife  may   testify  for  or  against  the  other  without  the  consent  of  the  affected  spouse  while  the  marriage  subsists.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Petitioner  Cecilia  Zulueta  is  the  wife  of  private  respondent  Alfredo  Martin.  save   for  specified  exceptions..  does  not  shed  his/her  integrity  or   his  right  to  privacy  as  an  individual  and  the  constitutional  protection  is  ever  available  to  him  or  to  her.  And  this  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  duty  of  fidelity  that  each  owes  to  the  other.  No.  Martin  and   his  alleged  paramours.     The  review  for  petition  is  DENIED  for  lack  of  merit.  HINDI  KO  LANG  TALAGA  PWEDENG  I-­‐REPHRASE.  Ramos  On  December  12.  and  in  the  presence  of  her  mother.  and  photographs.O.  Dr.  The  documents  and  papers   were  seized  for  use  in  evidence  in  a  case  for  legal  separation  and  for  disqualification  from  the  practice  of  medicine  which  petitioner   had  filed  against  her  husband.  Martin's  passport.  chaired  by  the  Executive   Secretary.  a  driver  and  private  respondent's  secretary.   An   Inter-­‐Agency   Coordinating   Committee   (IACC)   to   draw-­‐up   the   implementing  guidelines  and  oversee  the  implementation  of  the  System  is  hereby  created.  cancelled  checks.   WHEREAS.  RAMOS.   NOW.  by  contracting  marriage.  The  constitutional  injunction  declaring  "the   privacy  of  communication  and  correspondence  [to  be]  inviolable"  is  no  less  applicable  simply  because  it  is  the  wife  (who  thinks   herself  aggrieved  by  her  husband's  infidelity)  who  is  the  party  against  whom  the  constitutional  provision  is  to  be  enforced.   Establishment   of   a   National   Compoterized   Identification   Reference   System.  On  March  26.  a  doctor  of  medicine.  greetings  cards.   A   decentralized   Identification   Reference  System  among  the  key  basic  services  and  social  security  providers  is  hereby  established.  I.  THEREFORE."    Any  violation  of  this  provision  renders  the  evidence  obtained  inadmissible  "for  any  purpose  in  any   proceeding.  The  only   exception  to  the  prohibition  in  the  Constitution  is  if  there  is  a  "lawful  order  [from  a]  court  or  when  public  safety  or  order  requires   otherwise.  FIDEL  V.  A  person.  as  prescribed  by  law.  by  virtue  of  the  powers  vested  in   me  by  law.       The  law  insures  absolute  freedom  of  communication  between  the  spouses  by  making  it  privileged.  there  is  a  need  to  provide  Filipino  citizens  and  foreign  residents  with  the  facility  to  conveniently  transact   business  with  basic  service  and  social  security  providers  and  other  government  instrumentalities.  quite  another  is  a  compulsion  for  each  one  to  share  what  one   knows  with  the  other.       OPLE  vs  TORRES  (SORRY  GUYS.    But  one  thing  is  freedom  of  communication.  do  hereby  direct  the  following:   Sec.  this  will  require  a  computerized  system  to  properly  and  efficiently  identify  persons  seeking  basic  services   on  social  security  and  reduce.  1982.    Indeed  the  documents  and  papers  in  question  are  inadmissible  in  evidence.    Neither  may  be  examined   without  the  consent  of  the  other  as  to  any  communication  received  in  confidence  by  one  from  the  other  during  the  marriage.  President  of  the  Republic  of  the  Philippines.   a   concerted   and   collaborative   effort   among   the   various   basic   services   and   social   security   providing   agencies  and  other  government  intrumentalities  is  required  to  achieve  such  a  system.  petitioner  entered  the  clinic  of  her   husband.  LALO  NA  YUNG  DECISION  -­‐  GRAHAM)   FACTS:   A.  diaries.  if  not  totally  eradicate  fraudulent  transactions  and  misrepresentations."       The  intimacies  between  husband  and  wife  do  not  justify  any  one  of  them  in  breaking  the  drawers  and  cabinets  of  the  other  and  in   ransacking  them  for  any  telltale  evidence  of  marital  infidelity.     Issue:   (1)  Whether  or  not  the  documents  and  papers  in  question  are  inadmissible  in  evidence.   WHEREAS.   2.     Held:   (1)  No.

  THEREFORE.  petitioner  filed  the  instant  petition  against  respondents.   The   NSO.)  FIDEL  V.   The   funds   necessary   for   the   implementation   of   the   system   shall   be   sourced   from   the   respective   budgets  of  the  concerned  agencies.   NO.  National  Computer  Center.   NO.  The  National  Computer  Center  (NCC)  is  hereby  designated  as  secretariat  to  the  IACC  and  as  such   shall  provide  administrative  and  technical  support  to  the  IACC.   Administrator.     Respondents  counter-­‐argue:   A.  Department  of  Health   Administrator.  Presidential  Management  Staff   Secretary.   NO.O.  Secretariat.   Funding.   the   GSIS   and   SSS   as   lead   agencies   and   other   concerned   agencies   shall   undertake   a   massive  tri-­‐media  information  dissemination  campaign  to  educate  and  raise  public  awareness  on  the  importance   and  use  of  the  PRN  and  the  Social  Security  Identification  Reference.  1997.  National  Economic  Development  Authority   Secretary.   Petitioner  contends:   A.O.   GSIS   and   SSS   shall   submit   regular   reports   to   the   Office   of   the   President  through  the  IACC.  No.   who   as   members   of   the   Inter-­‐Agency   Coordinating   Committee.   AN   UNCONSTITUTIONAL   USURPATION   OF   THE   LEGISLATIVE   POWERS   OF   THE   CONGRESS   OF   THE   REPUBLIC  OF  THE  PHILIPPINES.  on  the  status  of  implementation  of  this  undertaking.  308  IS  AN   UNCONSTITUTIONAL  USURPATION  OF  THE  EXCLUSIVE  RIGHT  OF  CONGRESS  TO  APPROPRIATE  PUBLIC  FUNDS  FOR   EXPENDITURE.  8.   On  January  24.   THE   ISSUANCE   OF   A.   are   charged   with   the   implementation   of   A.  The  Population  Reference  Number  (PRN)  generated  by  the  NSO  shall  serve  as  the   common   reference   number   to   establish   a   linkage   among   concerned   agencies.  Nineteen  Hundred  and  Ninety-­‐Six.   308   INSIDIOUSLY   LAYS   THE   GROUNDWORK   FOR   A   SYSTEM   WHICH   WILL   2 VIOLATE  THE  BILL  OF  RIGHTS  ENSHRINED  IN  THE  CONSTITUTION.  308  was  published  in  four  newspapers  of  general  circulation  on  January  22.O.   On  April  8.   Sec.   DONE  in  the  City  of  Manila.  3.  then  Executive  Secretary  Ruben  Torres  and  the  heads   of   the   government   agencies.   B.   6.  NO.  Linkage  Among  Agencies.  Effectivity.O.  THE  INSTANT  PETITION  IS  NOT  A  JUSTICIABLE  CASE  AS  WOULD  WARRANT  A  JUDICIAL  REVIEW.  This  Administrative  Order  shall  take  effect  immediately.   THE   ESTABLISNMENT   OF   A   NATIONAL   COMPUTERIZED   IDENTIFICATION   REFERENCE   SYSTEM   REQUIRES   A   LEGISLATIVE   ACT.  the  court  issued  a  temporary  restraining  order  enjoining  its  implementation.   in   coordination   with   the   National   Statistics   Office.   7.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Head.  Government  Service  Insurance  System.   Conduct   of   Information   Dissemination   Campaign.   B.   The   IACC   Secretariat   shall   coordinate   with   the   different   Social   Security   and   Services   Agencies   to   establish   the   standards   in   the   use   of   Biometrics   Technology  and  in  computer  application  designs  of  their  respective  systems.  4.   A.  1997.  National  Statistics  Office   Managing  Director.  RAMOS   A.   .   C.   Sec.   (SGD.  No.   Submission   of   Regular   Reports.   Administrator.   308   BY   THE   PRESIDENT   OF   THE   REPUBLIC   OF   THE   PHILIPPINES   IS.   Sec.O.   308   [1996]   WAS   ISSUED   WITHIN   THE   EXECUTIVE   AND   ADMINISTRATIVE   POWERS   OF   THE   PRESIDENT   WITHOUT  ENCROACHING  ON  THE  LEGISLATIVE  POWERS  OF  CONGRESS.  1997.   Sec.   The   Office   of   the   Press   Secretary.  1997  and  January  23.  Social  Security  System.   5.  Department  of  the  Interior  and  Local  Government   Secretary.  THE  APPROPRIATION  OF  PUBLIC  FUNDS  BY  THE  PRESIDENT  FOR  THE  IMPLEMENTATION  OF  A.  this  12th  day  of  December  in  the  year  of  Our  Lord.   Sec.   THE   IMPLEMENTATION   OF   A.O.   Sec.  308.

  of   the   dignity   and   integrity   of   the   individual   —   has   become   increasingly  important  as  modern  society  has  developed."   It  has  wider  implications  though.  later  Chief  Justice..   Hindi   ini-­‐specify   nung   A.”  For  specific  details.    we   adopted   the   Griswold   ruling   that   there   is   a   constitutional   right   to   privacy.  No.  firmly  distinguishing  it  from  the  public  sector.  and  organization  —  operate  to  narrow  the  area  of  privacy  and  facilitate  intrusion  into  it.  the  United  States  Supreme  Court  gave  more  substance  to  the  right  of  privacy  when  it  ruled  that   the  right  has  a  constitutional  foundation."   In   the   1968   case   of  Morfe   v.  if  we  extend  our  judicial  gaze  we  will  find  that  the  right  of  privacy  is  recognized  and  enshrined  in  several  provisions   of  our  Constitution.kung   paano   at   saan   sila   ii-­‐store.  NO.     ISSUE/S:   Whether  or  not  Administrative  Order  No.   of   certain   rights.  The  language  of  Prof.   kaya   siya  “not  narrowly  drawn.  .O.  It  held  that  there  is  a  right  of  privacy  which  can  be  found  within  the  penumbras  of  the  First.  which  the  state  can  control.   houses   and   effects.  The  essence  of  privacy  is  the  "right  to  be  let  alone.O.  308  entitled  "Adoption  of  a  National  Computerized   Identification  Reference  System"  declared  null  and  void  for  being  unconstitutional.O.  it  is  fully  deserving  of  constitutional  protection.   shall   not   be   construed   to   deny   or   disparage  others  retained  by  the  people.  J   Ratio     Assuming.   yung   mga   method   ng   pagkuha   ng   information.O.   No.  please  read  the  Ratio.  in  itself.   D.  various  guarantees  create  zones  of  privacy.."  In  the   1965  case  of  Griswold  v.   In   contrast.   THE   FUNDS   NECESSARY   FOR   THE   IMPLEMENTATION   OF   THE   IDENTIFICATION   REFERENCE   SYSTEM   MAY   BE   SOURCED  FROM  THE  BUDGETS  OF  THE  CONCERNED  AGENCIES.  is  the   hallmark   of   the   absolute   state.   Third.   a   system   of   limited   government   safeguards   a   private   sector.    It  is  expressly  recognized  in  section  3  (1)  of  the  Bill  of  Rights:   3 .   The   right   to   privacy   as   such   is   accorded   recognition   independently   of   its   identification  with  liberty.   still   it   cannot   pass   constitutional   muster   as   an   administrative  legislation  because  facially  it  violates  the  right  to  privacy.  in  all  aspects  of  his  life.  The  right  of  association  contained  in   the   penumbra   of   the   First   Amendment   is   one.  Enrique  Fernando.   So   it   is   likewise   in   our   jurisdiction.  Ultimate  and  pervasive  control  of  the  individual.  A.  Protection  of   this   private   sector   —   protection.  308  impermissibly  intrudes  on  our  citizenry's  protected  zone  of  privacy.   and   the   like."   The   Fifth   Amendment   in   its   Self-­‐Incrimination  Clause  enables   the  citizen  to  create  a  zone  of  privacy  which  government  may  not  force  him  to  surrender  to  his  detriment.   which   belongs  to  the  individual.   urbanization.  Justice.   Speaking   thru  Mr.   HELD:     IN  VIEW  WHEREOF.  viz:   Specific  guarantees  in  the  Bill  of  Rights  have  penumbras  formed  by  emanations  from  these  guarantees  that  help   give  them  life  and  substance  .  No.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           C.  Fourth.  we  held:   xxx  xxx  xxx   The  Griswold  case  invalidated  a  Connecticut  statute  which  made  the  use  of  contraceptives  a  criminal  offence  on  the   ground   of   its   amounting   to   an   unconstitutional   invasion   of   the   right   of   privacy   of   married   persons.  Ramos  did  –  eh  “not  narrowly  drawn”  daw  yung  A.   308.   the   capacity   to   maintain   and   support   this   enclave   of   private   life   marks   the   difference   between   a   democratic   and  a  totalitarian  society.  This  is  indeed  one  of  the  basic  distinctions  between   absolute  and  limited  government.  The  Ninth   Amendment   provides:   "The   enumeration   in   the   Constitution.  aside  from  the  power  of  the  Congress  na  hindi  pwedeng  i-­‐practice  ng  President  –   which  former  Pres.   that   A.  the  petition  is  granted  and  Adminisrative  Order  No.  Emerson  is   particularly  apt:  "The  concept  of  limited  government  has  always  included  the  idea  that  governmental  powers  stop   short  of  certain  intrusions  into  the  personal  life  of  the  citizen.   as   we   have   seen.  All  the  forces  of  a  technological  age  —  industrialization.   The   Third   Amendment   in   its   prohibition   against   the   quartering   of   soldiers   "in   any   house"   in   time   of   peace   without   the   consent   of   the   owner   is   another   facet   of   that   privacy.O.  Yung  sobrang  pagka-­‐general  niya  ang  dahilan   kung  bakit  siya  threat  sa  privacy  ng  bawat  individual  kasi  to  grant  such  law  daw  would  allow  the  authorities  to  have  unrestrained   power.  they  are  free  to  choose  what  they  want  to  do  sa  information  na  makukuha  sa  ID  system  na  pino-­‐propose  nung  A.  In  modern   terms.  The  constitutional  right  to  privacy  has  come  into  its  own.   The   Fourth   Amendment   explicitly   affirms   the   ''right   of   the   people   to   be   secure   in   their   persons.  308."   Indeed.  Connecticut.  308  [1996]  PROTECTS  AN  INDIVIDUAL'S  INTEREST  IN  PRIVACY.   rightfully   it   stressed  "a  relationship  lying  within  the  zone  of  privacy  created  by  several  fundamental  constitutional  guarantees.   arguendo.   308   need   not   be   the   subject   of   a   law.     Unconstitutional  siya  kasi  sabi  ng  court.  Fifth  and  Ninth  Amendments..   against   unreasonable   searches   and   seizures.   in   other   words.   Mutuc.  .

  No.  if  not  totally  eradicate.O.   xxx  xxx  xxx   Sec.  nor  shall  any  person  be   denied  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws.    The   Rules   of   Court   on   privileged   communication   likewise   recognize   the  privacy  of  certain  information.    Invasion   of   privacy   is   an   offense   in   special   laws   like   the   Anti-­‐Wiretapping   Law."    The  term  "biometrics"  has  evolved  into  a  broad  category  of  technologies  which  provide  precise  confirmation  of  an   individual's   identity   through   the   use   of   the   individual's   own   physiological   and   behavioral   characteristics.    It  also  holds  a  public  officer  or  employee  or  any  private  individual   liable   for   damages   for   any   violation   of   the   rights   and   liberties   of   another   person.    the   revelation   of   trade   and   industrial   secrets.  No  person  shall  be  deprived  of  life.  No.    the   Secrecy   of   Bank   Deposits   Act    and   the   Intellectual   Property   Code.  308  which  if  implemented  will  put  our  people's  right  to  privacy  in  clear  and   present  danger.    The   Revised   Penal   Code   makes   a   crime   the   violation   of   secrets   by   an   officer.   This   technology   requires   one's   fingertip   to   be   scanned   every   time   service   or   access   is  provided.  the  overbreadth  of  A.  No.   Other  facets  of  the  right  to  privacy  are  protectad  in  various  provisions  of  the  Bill  of  Rights.   houses   papers.   xxx  xxx  xxx   Sec.   including   those   employed   in   the   public   and   private   sectors.   and   effects   against   unreasonable   searches  and  seizures  of  whatever  nature  and  for  any  purpose  shall  be  inviolable.   The   right   of   the   people   to   be   secure   in   their   persons.    Another  biometric  method  is  known  as  the   "artificial  nose.  No  person  shall  be  compelled  to  be  a  witness  against  himself.  1.  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.   retinal   scan."   Biometry   or   biometrics   is   "the   science   of   the   applicatin   of   statistical   methods   to   biological   facts.  A.  liberty.  308  is  justified  by  some  compelling  state  interest   and  that  it   is  narrowly  drawn.    and   recognizes   the   privacy   of   letters   and   other   private   communications.   The   biometric   measurement   is  used  to  verify  that  the  individual  holding  the  card  or  entering  the  PIN  is  the  legitimate  owner  of  the  card  or  PIN.    and   trespass   to   dwelling.     A   most   common   form   of   biological   encoding   is   finger-­‐scanning   where   technology   scans   a   fingertip   and   turns   the   unique   pattern  therein  into  an  individual  number  which  is  called  a  biocrypt.   personality.O.   to   form   unions.  or  property  without  due  process  of  law.O.  or  when  public  safety  or  order  requires  otherwise  as  prescribed  by  law.   Scientists   have   found   that   by   taking   pictures   of   a   face   using   infra-­‐red   .  it  is  the  burden  of  government  to  show  that  A.   we   prescind   from   the   premise   that   the   right   to   privacy   is   a   fundamental   right   guaranteed   by   the   Constitution.  viz:     Sec.  and  particularly  describing  the  place  to   be  searched  and  the  persons  or  things  to  be  seized.   The   right   of   the   people.   Zones  of  privacy  are  likewise  recognized  and  protected  in  our  laws.  public  safety.   signature   and   keystroke.   Sec.  308.   6.  the  vagueness.    A   physiological   characteristic   is   a   relatively   stable   physical   characteristic   such   as   a   fingerprint.  hence.  This  technology  produces  a  unique  print  similar  to  a  finger  print.    Another  method  is  the  retinal  scan.  Neither  shall  the  right  to  travel  be  impaired  except  in  the  interest  of  national   security.  308  is  predicated  on  two  considerations:  (1)  the  need  to  provides  our  citizens  and  foreigners  with  the   facility   to   conveniently   transact   business   with   basic   service   and   social   security   providers   and   other   government   instrumentalities   and   (2)  the  need  to  reduce.   (1)   The   privacy   of   communication   and   correspondence   shall   be   inviolable   except   upon   lawful   order   of   the   court.  17.    The  latest   on   the   list   of   biometric   achievements   is   the   thermogram.  The  biocrypt  is  stored  in  computer  data  banks    and  becomes  a   means   of   identifying   an   individual   using   a   service.  or  public  health  as  may  be  provided  by  law.  No.    Most   biometric   idenfication   systems   use   a   card   or   personal   identificatin   number   (PIN)   for   initial   identification.   2."  This  device  chemically  analyzes  the  unique  combination  of  substances  excreted  from  the  skin  of  people.   The   heart   of   A.   A   behavioral   characteristic   is   influenced   by   the   individual's   personality   and   includes   voice   print.  No.  Retinal  scan  technology  employs  optical  technology  to  map  the  capillary  pattern  of   the  retina  of  the  eye.O.  fraudulent  transactions  and  misrepresentations  by  persons  seeking  basic  services.   a   mathematical   analysis   of   biological  data.     Unlike   the   dissenters.   privacy   and   peace   of   mind   of   his   neighbors   and   other   persons"   and   punishes   as  actionable   torts   several   acts   by  a  person  of  meddling  and  prying  into  the  privacy  of  another.   3.  The  Civil  Code  provides  that  "[e]very  person  shall  respect   the   dignity.   hand   geometry   or   facial   features.   Sec.  or  societies  for  purposes  not  contrary  to  law  shall  not  be  abridged.  It  is   debatable  whether  these  interests  are  compelling  enough  to  warrant  the  issuance  of  A.  But  what  is  not  arguable  is  the   broadness.   associations.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Sec.   8.   The   liberty   of   abode   and   of   changing   the   same   within   the   limits   prescribed   by   law   shall   not   be   impaired   except  upon  lawful  order  of  the  court.O.   308   lies   in   its   Section   4   which   provides   for   a   Population   Reference   Number   (PRN)   as   a   "common   reference   number   to   establish   a   linkage   among   concerned   agencies"   through   the   use   of   "Biometrics   Technology"   and   "computer   application  designs.

  The   more   frequent   the   use   of   the   PRN.  can  make  use  of  the  data  for  whatever   purpose."     In  the  last  few  decades.   The   Court   will   not   be   true   to   its   role   as  the  ultimate  guardian  of  the  people's  liberty  if  it  would  not  immediately  smother  the  sparks  that  endanger  their  rights  but  would   rather  wait  for  the  fire  that  could  consume  them.  When  the  access  code  of  the  control  programs  of   the  particular  computer  system  is  broken.O.  skin.   much   less   verify   the   correctness   of   the   data   encoded.  income  tax   returns.   These   factors   are   essential   to   safeguard   the   privacy  and  guaranty  the  integrity  of  the  information.   308.  Today.   hospitalization.    The   computer   is   capable   of   producing   a   comprehensive  dossier  on  individuals  out  of  information  given  at  different  times  and  for  varied  purposes.  an  individual  must  present  his  PRN  everytime  he  deals  with  a  government  agency  to  avail  of   basic   services   and   security.  but  the  existence  of  this  vast  reservoir  of  personal  information  constitutes  a   covert  invitation  to  misuse.  the  better  the  chance  of  building  a  huge  formidable  informatin  base  through  the  electronic  linkage  of  the  files.O.  308  from  constitutional  infirmity  for  again   said  order  does  not  tell  us  in  clear  and  categorical  terms  how  these  information  gathered  shall  he  handled.    It  can  continue  adding  to   the   stored   data   and   keeping   the   information   up   to   date.O.  308  is  undoubtedly  not  narrowly  drawn.   it   may   also   enable   unscrupulous   persons   to   access   confidential   information   and   circumvent   the   right   against   self-­‐incrimination.O.   the   indefiniteness   of   A.O.   such   as   customs.   biometrics  is  no  longer  limited  to  the  use  of  fingerprint  to  identify  an  individual.  No.  the  individual  has  exhibited  an  expectation  of  privacy.  technology  has  progressed  at  a  galloping  rate.   we   cannot   countenance   such   a   laidback   posture.   His   transactions   with   the   government   agency   will   necessarily   be   recorded   —   whether   it   be   in   the   computer  or  in  the  documentary  file  of  the  agency.  the  computer  linkage  gives  other  government  agencies  access  to   the  information.     It  is  plain  and  we  hold  that  A.   308   does   not  state   what  specific  biological  characteristics  and  what  particular  biometrics  technology  shall  be  used  to  identify  people  who  will  seek  its   coverage.  No.   Though  A.     The  ability  of  sophisticated  data  center  to  generate  a  comprehensive  cradle-­‐to-­‐grave  dossier  on  an  individual  and  transmit  it   over   a   national   network   is   one   of   the   most   graphic   threats   of   the   computer   revolution.  the  fear  that  it  threatens  the  right  to   privacy  of  our  people  is  not  groundless.   Pursuant  to  said  administrative  order.  The  end  of  privacy  begins.  Yet.  No.   308   can   give   the   government   the   roving   authority   to   store   and   retrieve  information  for  a  purpose  other  than  the  identification  of  the  individual  through  his  PRN.   Retrieval   of   stored   date   is   simple.   statement   of   assets   and   liabilities.  They   threaten   the   very   abuses  that  the  Bill  of  Rights  seeks  to  prevent.   No.  Considering  the  banquest  of  options  available  to  the  implementors  of  A.    Once   extracted.   that   the   computer   data   file   will   be   limited   to   the   name.   arguendo.O.  No.   308   cannot   be   undarplayed   as   the   dissenters   do.O.   the   Solicitor   General   claims   that   the   adoption   of   the   Identification   Reference   System   will   contribute   to   the   "generation   of   population   data   for   development   planning.   A.O.   it   can   be   extracted   together   with   other   data   on   the   subject.  an  intruder.    However.   it   may   pave   the   way   for   "fishing   expeditions"   by   government   authorities   and   evade   the   right   against   unreasonable   searches   and   seizures.  a  temptation  that  may  be  too  great  for  some  of  our  authorities  to  resist.  the  dissenting  opinions  would  dismiss  its  danger  to  the  right  to   privacy   as   speculative   and   hypothetical.   The   potential   for   misuse   of   the   data   to   be   gathered   under   A.   Again.   biometrics   and   computer   technology   are   accentuated   when   we   consider   that   the   individual   lacks   control   over   what   can   be   read   or   placed   on   his   ID.  there  are  no  controls  to  guard  against  leakage  of  information.O.  308  should  also  raise  our  antennas  for  a  further  look  will  show  that  it  does  not  state  whether  encoding  of  data  is   limited   to   biological   information   alone   for   identification   purposes.    The   lack   of   proper   safeguards   in   this   regard   of   A.   No.   the   information  is  putty  in  the  hands  of  any  person.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           cameras.   No.   It   is   noteworthy   that   A.  It  is  a  new  science  that  uses  various  technologies  in   encoding   any   and   all   biological   characteristics   of   an   individual   for   identification.  308.    Even  that  hospitable  assumption  will  not  save  A.   other   factors.    Well  to  note.  The  factual  circumstances  of  the  case  determines  the  reasonableness  of  the   expectation.  The  reasonableness  of  a  person's  expectation  of  privacy   depends  on  a  two-­‐part  test:  (1)  whether  by  his  conduct.   address   and   other   basic   personal   infomation  about  the  individual.  The  individual's  file  may  include  his  transactions  for  loan  availments.   under   what   circumstances   and   for   what   purpose.   In   fact.    The  data  may  be   gathered  for  gainful  and  useful  government  purposes.   etc.  fat  and  blood  vessels  all  contribute  to  the   individual's  personal  "heat  signature.  and  (2)  whether  this   expectation  is  one  that  society  recognizes  as  reasonable.  without  fear  of  sanction  or  penalty.   308   may   interfere   with   the   individual's   liberty   of   abode   and   travel   by   enabling   authorities   to   track   down   his   movement.O.   No.  Some  science  fictions  are  now  science  facts."    This   is   an   admission  that  the  PRN  will  not  be  used  solely  for  identification  but  the  generation  of  other  data  with  remote  relation  to  the  avowed   purposes   of   A.  308  falls  short  of  assuring  that  personal  information  which  will  be  gathered  about  our   people   will   only   be   processed   for   unequivocally   specified   purposes.  No.  The  different  densities  of  bone.   reimbursements   for   medication.   No.   may   serve   to   .   When   information   of   a   privileged   character   finds   its   way   into   the   computer.  manipulate  the  data  stored  within  the  system.   We  reject  the  argument  of  the  Solicitor  General  that  an  individual  has  a  reasonable  expectation  of  privacy  with  regard  to  the   Natioal  ID  and  the  use  of  biometrics  technology  as  it  stands  on  quicksand.     We   can   even   grant.   physical   surroundings   and   practices   of   a   particular   activity.   Clearly.  or  worse.  It  does  not  provide  who   shall   control   and   access   the   data.    The   possibilities   of   abuse   and   misuse   of   the   PRN.  a  unique  heat  distribution  pattern  is  seen.

 Supreme  Court  held  that  while  an  individual's  interest  in  avoiding  disclosuer  of  personal  matter   is   an   aspect   of   the   right   to   privacy.  308  lacks  these  vital  safeguards.  The  New  York  State  Controlled  Substance  Act  of  1972   required  physicians  to  identify  parties  obtaining  prescription  drugs  enumerated  in  the  statute.  308  may  have  been  impelled  by  a  worthy  purpose.  however.  The  U.  No.   and   (3)   generate   population   data   for   development   planning.    As   technology  advances.   R.   It   will   not   do   for   the   authorities   to   invoke  the  presumption  of  regularity  in  the  performance  of  official  duties.A.   and   it   was   narrowly  drawn  to  avoid  abuses.  308  is  so  widely  drawn  that  a  minimum  standard  for  a  reasonable  expectation  of  privacy.   Moreover.   The   need   to   clarify   the   penal   aspect   of   A.  his  sources  of  income  and  expenses..O.  The  plaintiffs.   even   when   the   government   does   not   act   irrationally.   It   also   prohibited   public   disclosure   of   the  data  by  imposing  penalties  for  its  violation.   No.  The   law  was  enacted  to  promote  morality  in  public  administration  by  curtailing  and  minimizing  the  opportunities  for  official  corruption   and  maintaining  a  standard  of  honesty  in  the  public  service.  drugs  with  a  recognized  medical   use   but   with   a   potential   for   abuse.  As  we  discussed  above.    The  use  of  biometrics  and  computer  technology  in  A.   The   rules   and   regulations   to   be   by   the   IACC   cannot   remedy   this   fatal   defect.   Mutuc.  i.   Next.   so   that   the   names   and   addresses   of   the   patients   can   be   recorded   in   a   centralized   computer   file   of   the  State  Department  of  Health.   It   ebumerated   who  were   authorized   to   access   the   data.O.   Nor   do   your   present   laws   prvide   adequate   safeguards   for   a   reasonable   expectation   of   privacy.   administrative   order.     The   same   circumstances   do   not   obtain   in   the   case   at   bar.   308   are:   (1)   to   streamline   and   speed   up   the   implementation   of   basic   government   services.  No.   For   one.  And  we  now  hod  that  when  the  integrity  of  a  fundamental  right  is  at  stake.  He  cocludes  that  these  purposes  justify  the  incursions  into  the  right  to  privacy  for  the  means  are  rationally  related  to  the   end.   The   law   is   clear   on   what   practices   were   prohibited   and   penalized.   not   an   administrative   order.    we   upheld   the   constitutionality   of   R.   308   is   another   reason   why   its   enactment   should   be   given   to   Congress.O.A.   It   is   not   clear   whether   they   may   be   applied   to   data   with   the   other   government   agencies   forming   part   of   the   National   ID   System.  the  infringement  of  the  patients'  right  to  privacy  was   justified  by  a  valid  exercise  of  police  power.   No.  it  cannot  pass   constitutional  scrutiny  for  it  is  not  narrowly  drawn.  it  may  stigmatize  them  as  drug  addicts.  regardless   of  technology  used.e.S.  did  not  infringe  on  the  individual's  right  to  privacy.    These  laws.  We  declared  that  the  law..   No.O.  A.  A.   Commonwealth   Act.  as  a  valid  police  power  measure.  This  approach  is  demanded  by  the  1987  Constitution  whose  entire  matrix  is  designed  to  protect  human  rights  and  to  prevent   authoritarianism.  the  level  of  reasonably  expected  privacy  decreases.   In  Morfe   v.  cannot  be  inferred  from  its  provisions.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           create  or  diminish  this  expectation.   the   Anti-­‐Graft   and   Corrupt  Practices  Act.    The  plaintiffs  alleged  that  the  statute  invaded  a  constitutionally  protected  zone  of   privacy.O.   storage   and   retrieval   of   the   informatin.   591   penalizes  the  disclosure  by  any  person  of  data  furnished  by  the  individual  to  the  NSO  with  imprisonment  and  fine.   The   case   of  Whalen   v.  and  that  once   disclosed.   the   individual   interest   in   avoiding   disclosure   of   personal   matters.  claimed  that  some  people  might  decline  necessary   medication  because  of  their  fear  that  the  computerized  data  may  be  readily  available  and  open  to  public  disclosure.   3019   itself   is   sufficiently   detailed.  gives  the  IACC  virtually  infettered  discretion  to  determine  the  metes  and  bounds  of  the   ID  System.   They   must   satisfactorily   show   the   presence   of   compelling   state   interests   and   that   the   law.   if   not   defeated.  In  case  of  doubt.   rule   or   regulation   a   stricter   scrutiny.  The  patient-­‐ identification  requirement  was  a  product  of  an  orderly  and  rational  legislative  decision  made  upon  recommmendation  by  a  specially   appointed   commission   which   held   extensive   hearings   on   the   matter.  A.  No.   1161  prohibits  public  disclosure  of  SSS  employment  records  and  reports.   The   Court   found   that  the  statute  was  necessary  to  aid  in  the  enforcement  of  laws  designed  to  minimize  the  misuse  of  dangerous  drugs.   (2)   eradicate   fraud   by   avoiding   duplication   of   services.   In   Whalen.  IN  the  case  at  bar.   rule   or   regulation   is   narrowly   drawn   to   preclude   abuses.   3019   is   a   statute.   No.   308's   abridgment   of   the   right   of   privacy   by   using   the   rational   relationship   test.     We   are   not   impressed   by   the   argument.    The   measure   of   protection   granted   by   the   reasonable   expectation   diminishes   as   relevant   technology   becomes   more   widely   accepted.   Secondly.   .O.    The   security   of   the   computer   data   file   depends   not   only   on   the   physical   inaccessibility   of   the   file   but   also   on   the   advances   in   hardware   and  software   computer  technology.   The   statute   laid   down   the   procedure   and   requirements   for   the   gathering.   Rules   and   regulations   merely   implement   the   policy  of  the  law  or  order.   the   statute   did   not   pose   a   grievous   threat   to   establish   a   constitutional   violation.   the   statute   was   narrowly   drawn   and   contained   numerous   safeguards   against   indiscriminate   disclosure.  this   court   will   give   the   challenged   law.  On  its  face.  No.  In  view  of  these  safeguards.   3019.A.O.   R.    He   stressed   that   the   purposes   of   A.  i.  apply  to  records  and  data  with  the   NSO   and   the   SSS.e.  No.  A.O.    Republic  Act.   and   the   interest   in   independence   in   making   certain   kinds  of  important  decisions.  in  compelling  a  public  officer  to  make  an  annual   report  disclosing  his  assets  and  liabilities.  308  does  not  assure  the  individual  of   a  reasonable  expectation  of  privacy.  No.  Nor  is  it  enough  for  the  authorities  to  prove  that  their  act  is   not   irrational   for   a   basic   right   can   be   diminished.  the  least  we  can  do  is  to  lean  towards  the  stance  that  will  not  put  in  danger  the  rights  protected   by  the  Constitutions.   Roe    cited  by   the   Solicitor   General   is   also   off-­‐line.  but.   the   Solicitor   General   urges   us   to   validate   A.   the   United   States   Supreme   Court   was   presented   with   the   question   of   whether   the   State   of   New   York   could   keep   a   centralized   computer   record   of  the   names   and   addresses   of  all  persons  who  obtained  certain  drugs  pursuant  to  a  doctor's  prescription.  who  were  patients  and  doctors.

  which   the   state  can  control.    introduced  the  concept  of  cyberspace    and  the  information  superhighway  where  the  individual.  In  contrast.  We  reiterate  that  any  law  or   order   that   invades   individual   privacy   will   be   subjected   by   this   Court   to   strict   scrutiny.  Protection  of  this  private  sector  —  protection.  to  wit:   The  concept  of  limited  government  has  always  included  the  idea  that  governmental  powers  stop  short  of  certain  intrusions   into  the  personal  life  of  the  citizen.   store.    Intrusions   into   the   right   must   be   accompanied  by  proper  safeguards  and  well-­‐defined  standards  to  prevent  unconstitutional  invasions.   firmly   distinguishing   it   from   the   public   sector.    Used   wisely.  308.  a  system  of  limited   government   safeguards   a   private   sector.  in  other  words.   In  no  uncertain  terms.  No.   urbanization.   It   developed  the  internet.   which   belongs   to   the   individual.  This  is  indeed  one  of  the  basic  disctinctions  between  absolute  and  limited  government.  of  the  dignity  and  integrity  of  the  individual  —  has   become   increasingly   important   as   modern   society   has   developed.   process.   All   the   forces   of   a   technological   age   —   industrialization.   more   efficient   management  of  credit  and  insurance  programs.    The   benefits   of   the   computer   has   revolutionized   information   technology.O.  we  spell  out  in  neon  that  the  Court  is  not  per  se  agains  the  use  of  computers  to   accumulate.   faster   delivery   of   public   services.  and  organization  —  operate  to  narrow  the  area  of  privacy  and  facilitate  intrusion  into  it.  improvement  of  telecommunications  and  streamlining  of  financial  activities.  in  all  aspects  of  his  life.  the  capacity   to  maintain  and  support  this  enclave  of  private  life  marks  the  difference  between  a  democratic  and  a  totalitarian  society.   such   as   better   law   enforcement.   data   stored   in   the   computer   could   help   good   administration   by   making   accurate   and   comprehensive   information   for   those   who   have   to   frame   policy   and   make   key   decisions.       .  is  the  hallmark  of  the  absolute  state.  may  surf  and  search  all  kinds  and  classes  of  information  from  libraries  and  databases  connected  to  the   net.   The   reason   for   this   stance   was   laid   down   in  Morfe  v.  Ultimate   and  pervasive  control  of  the  individual.   It   merely   requires   that   the   law   be   narrowly   focused    and   a   compelling   interest   justify   such   intrusions.  The   right   is   not   intended   to   stifle   scientific   and   technological   advancements   that   enhance   public   service   and   the   common   good.  Mutuc.   Many   information   system   in   different   countries   make   use   of   the   computer   to   facilitate   important   social   objective.   retvieve   and   transmit   data   to   improve   our   bureaucracy.  In  modern  terms.  armed  only   with  his  personal  computer.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Even  while  we  strike  down  A.   Computers   work   wonders   to   achieve   the   efficiency   which   both   government   and   private   industry   seek.  we  also  underscore  that  the  right  to  privacy  does  not  bar  all  incursions  into  individual  privacy.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->