P. 1
Cons Ti

Cons Ti

|Views: 35|Likes:

More info:

Published by: Klarissa Grace Nebit Javier on Dec 08, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

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

02/10/2013

pdf

text

original

I.

THE DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION AND CONTRACT CLAUSES AS LIMITATIONS ON POLICE POWER, EMINENT DOMAIN AND TAXATION Art. III, Sec. 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. Art. III, Sec. 10. No law impairing the obligation of contracts shall be passed.

e. The evidence must have been presented at the hearing or at least contained in the record and known to the parties affected. f. The tribunal must rely on its own independent consideration of evidence, and not rely on the recommendation of a subordinate. g. The decision must state the facts and the law in such a way that the parties can know the issues involved and the reasons for the decision. Substantive Due Process

Fernando, Constitution of the Philippines, 502-562 (2d ed., 1977.) Tanada v. Tuvera, 136 S 27 (1985) LIMITATIONS OF SOVEREIGNTY Inherent in sovereignty, and therefore not even required to be conferred by the Constitution, are the police, eminent domain, and taxation powers. The Bill of Rights, notably the due process, equal protection and non-impairment clauses, is a means of limiting the exercise of these powers by imposing on the State the obligation to protect individual rights. The Bill of Rights is addressed to the State, notably the government, telling it what it cannot do to the individual. A. Due process - Procedural and Substantive Civil Procedural Due Process In civil cases, the SC laid down its elements in the case of Banco Espanol Filipino v. Palanca: a. b. c. d. Court with jurisdiction over the subject matter. Court with jurisdiction over the party-defendant Judgement rendered according to law. Defendant given the oppotunity to be heard (requirement on notice and hearing) HELD: The interpretation given by respondent is in accord w/ this Court's construction of said article. In a long line of decisions, this Court has ruled that publication in the OG is necessary in those cases where the legislation itself does not provide for its effectivity date-- for then the date of publication is material for determining its date of effectivity, w/c is the 15th day following its publication-- but not when the law itself provides for the date when it goes into effect. Respondent's argument, however, is logically correct only insofar as it equates the effectivity of laws w/ the fact of publication. Considered in the light of other statutes applicable to the issue at hand, the conclusion is easily reached that said Art. 2 does not preclude the requirement of publication in the OG, even if the law itself provides for the date of its effectivity. xxx The publication of all presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general applicability" is mandated by law. The clear object of the law is to give the general public adequate notice of the various laws w/c are to regulate their actions and conduct as citizens. W/o such notice and publication, there would be no basis for the application of the maxim ignorantia legis non excusat. It would be the height of injustice to punish or otherwise burden a citizen for the transgression of a law of w/c he had no notice whatsoever, not even a constructive one. It is needless to say that the publication of presidential issuances "of a public nature" or "of general applicability" is a requirement of due process. It is a rule of law that before a person may be bound by law, he must first be officially and specifically informed of its contents. RAM. Tanada v. Tuvera, 146 S 446 (1986). Motion for reconsideration. xxx [T]he clause "unless it is otherwise provided" refers to the date of effectivity and not to the requirement of publication itself, w/c cannot in any event be omitted. This clause does not mean that the legislature may make the law effective immediately upon approval, or on any other date, w/o its previous publication. Publication is indispensable in every case, but the legislature may in its discretion provide that the usual 15-day period shall be shortened or extended. It is not correct to say that under the disputed clause publication may be dispensed w/ altogether. The reason is that such omission would offend due process insofar as it would deny the public knowledge of the laws that are supposed to govern it. Conclusive presumption of knowledge of the law.-- The conclusive presumption that every person knows the law presupposes that the law has been published if the presumption is to have any legal justification at all. The term laws should refer to all laws and not only to those of general application, for strictly speaking all laws relate to the people in general albeit there are some that do not apply to F: Invoking the people's right to be informed on matters of public concern, a right recognized in the Constitution, as well as the principle that laws to be valid and enforceable must be published in the OG or otherwise effectively promulgated, petitioners seek a writ of mandamus to compel respondent public officials to publish, and/or cause the publication in the OG of various PDs, LOIs, general orders, proclamations, EOs, letters of implementation and administrative orders. Respondents contend, among others that publication in the OG is not a sine qua non requirement for the effectivity of laws where the laws themselves provide for their own effectivity dates. It is thus submitted that since the presidential issuances in question contain special provisions as to the date they are to take effect, publication in the OG is indispensable for their effectivity. The point stressed is anchored on Art. 2 of NCC.

Criminal Due Process In criminal cases, the elements were laid down in Vera v. People: a. Accused is informed why he is proceeded against, and what charge he must answer. b. Judgment of conviction is based on evidence that is not tainted by falsity, and after the defendant was heard. If the prosecution produces the conviction based on untrue evidence, then it is guilty of depriving the accused of due process. Thus false testimony can be questioned by the accused regardless of the time that lapsed. c. Judgment according to law d. Tribunal with jurisdiction Administrative Due Process In administrative proceedings, the elements were laid down in the case of Ang Tibay v. CIR as the "seven cardinal primary rights" in justiciable cases before administrative tribunals: a. There must be a hearing, where a party may present evidence in support of his case. b. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented by a party. c. While the tribunal has no duty to decide the case correctly, its decision must be supported by evidence. d. The evidence supporting the decision must be substantial. Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.

them directly. An example is a law granting citizenship to a particular individual, like a relative of Pres. Marcos who was decreed instant naturalization. RULE: All statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, w/c shall begin 15 days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature. Coverage.-- Covered by this rule are PDs and EOs promulgated by the Pres. in the exercise of legislative powers. Administrative rules and regulations must also be published if their purpose is to enforce or implement existing law pursuant to a valid delegation. Interpretative regulations and those merely internal in nature, i.e., regulating only the personnel of the administrative agency and not the public, need not be published. Neither is publication required of the so-called letters of instructions issued by administrative superiors concerning the rules or guidelines to be followed by their subordinates in the performance of their duties. Publication must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the public of the contents of the laws. The mere mention of the number of the PD, the title of such decree, its whereabouts, the supposed date of effectivity, and in a mere supplement of the OG cannot satisfy the publication requirement. This is not even substantial compliance. RAM. Notes: In the original case, the SC ruled that as a matter of substantive due process, any law must be published before the people can be expected to observe them. But, according to a split decision, publication need not be made in the Official Gazette. It is enough that it be published in a newspaper of general circulation. After the EDSA revolution, upon the reconstitution of the SC, the original judgment was reconsidered, and the SC now ruled that publication must be made in the Official Gazette, pursuant to CA 638 and the Civil Code, unless a law "provides otherwise" that is, a different mode of publication. What must be published are (1) all laws of general application, and even those not of general application like (2) private laws affecting only particular individuals, e.g., legislative grant of citizenship, (3) laws of local application, and (4) rules and regulations of a substantive character. This means not only the title but the entire law. When? Forthwith, that is, immediately. Where? Only in the Official Gazette. (See discussion under Administrative Law) In his concurring opinion, Justice Feliciano noted that even if a statute or decree states that it shall take effect "immediately upon approval", this should be construed to mean "immediately upon publication"; otherwise, a literal interpretation would render the law unconstitutional. For the phrase "unless otherwise provided by law" in Art. 2 of the Civil Code refers not to the necessity of publication (which is constitutionally mandated by the due process clause and therefore cannot be provided otherwise by a mere law) but to the effectivity of the law. The general rule is that the law will take effect 15 days after its in the Official Gazette (pursuant to CA 638 and the Civil Code). The law, however, may "provide otherwise", e.g. (i) immediately, which means immediately upon publication, or (ii) one year after publication, like the Family Code. Likewise, he contended that if the law provided for a different mode of publication, that is, in a newspaper of general circulation, then the requirements of due process would have been satisfied. E.O. 200 took the cue and amended Art. 2 of the Civil Code: Laws take effect 15 days after publication in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation, unless otherwise provided by law. Executive Order No. 200, June 18, 1987

PROVIDING FOR THE PUBLICATION OF LAWS EITHER IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE OR IN A NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION IN THE PHILIPPINES AS A REQUIREMENT FOR THEIR EFFECTIVITY. WHEREAS, Art. 2 of the Civil Code partly provides that "laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise provided xxx;" WHEREAS, the requirement that for laws to be effective only a publication thereof in the Official Gazette will suffice has entailed some problems, a point recognized by the Supreme Court in Tanada v. Tuvera, et al. (G.R. 63915, Deceber 29, 1986) when it observed that "[t]here is much to be said of the view that publication need not be made in the Official Gazette, considering its erratic release and limited readership;" WHEREAS, it was likewise observed that "[u]ndoubtedly, newspapers of general circulation could better perform the function of communicating the laws to the people as such periodicals are more easily available, have a wider readership, and come out regularly;" and WHEREAS, in view of the foregoing premises Art. 2 of the Civil Code should accordingly be amended so that laws to be effective must be published either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the country; NOW, THEREFORE, I, CORAZON C. AQUINO, President of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby order: Section 1. Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication either in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines, unless it is otherwise provided. Section 2. Art. 2 of the Republic Act 386, otherwise known as the "Civil Code of the Philippines," and all other laws inconsistent with this Executive Order are hereby repealed or modified accordingly. Section 3. This Executive Order shall take effect immediately after its publication in the Official Gazatte. Done in the City of Manila, this 18th day of June, in the year of Our Lord, nine hundred and eithty-seven. So the state of the law at the present is as follows: 1. Laws must be published as a requirement of substantive due process. 2. These laws include (a) laws of general application, (b) private laws, (c) laws of local application, (d) rules and regulations of administrative agencies of a substantive character, and (e) circulars that carry penalty for their violation. 3. The publication can be made in the Official Gazette or in a newspaper of general circulation. 4. The law shall take effect 15 days after publication, unless it provide otherwise, which could be anytime after publication (e.g. immediately, or one year or any other time).? Ynot vs. IAC, 148 SCRA 659 (1987) F: Petitioners' 6 carabaos were confiscated by the police for having been transported from Masbate to Iloilo in violation of EO 626-A. He brought an action for replevin, challenging the consitutionality of the EO. The trial court sustained the confiscation of the animals and declined to rule on the validity of the law on the ground that it lacked authority to do so. Its decision was affirmed by the IAC. Hence this petition for review.

HELD: (1) Where the validity of an appointment is not challenged in an appropriate proceeding. retaining the carabao in one province will not prevent their slaughter there. it could be easily circumsbcribed by simply killing the animal. w/ no less difficulty in on province than in another. namely. On 11/8/74. remedied at the mediation conference called at the Dept.. The govt is not required to adhere to a policy of "all or none. another committee was appointed to investigate another charge of a similar nature against petitioner. Min. questioning the competence of members of the PAEC to pass judgment on the safety of the Bataan Power Plant and charging them w/ bias and prejudgment. 127 SCRA 329 (1984) Ban on Use of Heavy Cars on Week-ends and Holiday s Valid. Petitioner waived his right to confront the witnesses. VV. this guarantee is reinforced by the provision on academic freedom. shall "be distributed to charitable institutions and other similar institutions as the Chairman of the National Meat Inspection Commission may see fit. issued memo. however. The measures struck him at once and pounced upon the petitioner w/o giving him a chance to be heard. they cannot escape responsibility for these publications. Araneta University. the University applied w/ the NLRC for clearance to terminate petitioner's employment. On 7/8/74. We do not see. but on appeal to the Sec. CC (Consular Corps). the carabaos were arbitrarily confiscated by the police station commander. (3) In the instant case. VV. They. HELD: (1) Petitioners are owners of an 8 cylinder 1969 Buick and of a 6 cylinder Willy's Kaiser Jeep. Tanada v. providing penalties for viol. convicted the petitioner and immediately imposed punishment. of Labor. this petition for certiorari. revise. based on their publications stating that the plant was safe. of the resps. the question of competence is not w/in the filed of judicial inquiry. if the movement of the live animals for the purpose of preventing their slaughter cannot be prohibited. of Labor during w/c petitioner was heard on his evidence. through cousel. dead meat. . considering that they can be killed any where. Ynot v. F: Petitioner was a professor at the Araneta University Foundation. F: LOI 689 banned the use of vehicles w/ A and EH plates on week-ends and holidays in view of the energy crisis. petitioner filed a complaint w/ the NLRC for reinstatement and backwages. It is laden w/ perilous opportunities for partiality and abuse. The question of competence is a matter addressed to the appointing power. so says the EO. W/in the class to w/c the petitioner belongs the LOI operate equally and uniformly. Petitioner. in the case of carabeef. submitted its report recommending the separation of petitioner from the University. It has behind it the presumption of validity. (3) Nor does the LOI deny equal protection to the petitioners. The first was published in 1985. would be ultra vires. and to deserving farmers through dispersal as the Director of Animal Industry may see fit in the case of carabaos. Juinio. On 12/12/74. 1974. assures to workers security of tenure. There he was given the fullest opportunity to present his case. thus denying him elementary fair play. he was found guilty of making homosexual advances on one Leonardo De Lara by a faculty investating committee. The EO defined the prohibition. denied the petitioner's allegations and argued that the suit amounted to a request for advisory opinion. B. Petitioner's only right is to be heard. The committe then proceeded to hear the testimony of the complainants and on 12/5/74. how the prohibition of the interprovincial transport of carabaos can prevent their indiscriminate slaughter. to that extent the memo. and even corruption. Montemayor v. were returned to the petitioner only after he had filed a complaint for recovery and given a supersedeas bond w/c was ordered confiscated upon his failure to produce the carabaos when ordered by the trial court. However. As underlying the questions of fact may condition the constitutionality of legislation the presumption of validity must prevail in the absence of some factual foundation of record overthrowing the statute. therefore." The phrase may see fit is an extremely generous and dangerous condition. That the LOI does not include others does not render it invalid. (2) But the LOI cannot be declared void on its face. it is an apporpriate response to a problem. As for the carabeef. asked for the postponement of the hearing set for 11/18 and 19. and cancellation of registration. fine. however. PAEC clearly indicated its prejudgement that the nuclear plant is safe. IAC. The resps. HELD: The Consti. 77 SCRA 321 (1977) Lack of Due Process in Termination of Employment Remedied by Hearing in the NLRC. The resps. the prohibition is made to apply to it as otherwise. The necessity for evidence to rebut such presumption is unavoidable. The LOI is an energy conservation measure. DPL (Diplomatic). confiscation of vehicles. but as the majority of the PAEC commissioners even then were already occupying responsible positions in the PAEC. to present the witnesses in the NLRC. Phil. Judgement was rendered in petitioner's favor. Obviously. those classified as S (Service). reverse. The other 2 were issued earlier. have standing to challenge the validity of the LOI. In denying petitioner's motion for postponement of the hearing. relying solely on the strength of his evidence. Atomic Energy Commission. any more than moving them to another province will make it easier to kill them there. VV. and TC (Tourist Cars). if condition it is. (2) In these publications. or better still. old if male and 11 yrs old if female upon the issuance of the necessary permit) the EO will be conserving those still fit for farm work or breeding and preventing their improvident depletion. The petitioners brought suit questioning the validity of the LOI on the ground that it was discriminatory and a denial of due process. One searches in vain for the usual standard and the reasonable guidelines. Code does not authorize the impounding of vehicles as a penalty. lower courts can pass upon the validity of a statute in the first instance. This was. the limitations that the said officers must observe when they make their distribution. Petition dismissed. Transportation. VV.HELD: (1) Under the provision granting the SC jurisdiction to "review. the latter found petitioner's dismissal to be justified. supra. In the case of petitioner. Meanwhile. not to be flippant. (2) There is no doubt that by banning the slaughter of these animals (except where there at least 7 yrs. modify or affirm on appeal or certiorari. as the law or rules of court may provide final judgments of lower courts" in all cases involving the constitutionality of certain measures. Petition granted and PAEC restrained from acting in the proceedings for issuance of license. T (Truck). but the w/c motion was denied. It excepted. of Public Works. Due Process and Police Power Bautista v. 141 SCRA 307 (1986) Bias as Disqualification in Administrative Investigations F: Petition for prohibition brought by taxpayers. Petitioner filed a MFR contending that the hearing in the NLRC did not conform to ther requirements of due process as the witnesses against petitioner were not called so that petitioner could cross-examine them." (4) To the extent that the Land Transpo. The enforcement of the LOI to them would deprive them of prop. Perhaps so. it should follow that there is no reason either to prohibit their transfer as. of the LOI. w/c was carried out forthright. Hence. HELD: Pettioner did not object to the presentation of the testimony of the complainant and the witnesses at the school investigation and did not assert his right to cross-examine them. the committee did not accord procedural due process to the petitioner. (4) It is there authorized that the seized prop. Nor was it incumbent on resp. however.

observe labor standards. (2) Stevedoring services are subject to regulation and control for the public good and in the interest of the general welfare. Lazaro. to collect a fee for operating massage clinics separately from those operating barber ships and (2) To prevent immorality w/c might probably arise from the construction of separate rooms. or the renewal of licenses to operate them. in the interest of national welfare or defense. (2) with just compensation. and dance h alls in that mun. the CFI authorized the PTA to take immediate possession of the property. Bulacan. Nightclubs may be regulated but not prevented from carrying on their business. Private property shall not be take for public use without just compensation. the ct lifted the TRO prompting the petitioners to file an action for certiorari with the SC contending that: (1) ex parte lifting of TRO constituted grave abuse of discretion. On motion.g. HELD: A mun. to operate the arrastre and stevedoring services. C. The CFI upheld the validity of the ordinance and dismissed the petition. cannot prohibit the operation of nightclubs. notice and hearing of the lifting were not necessary. Velasco v. Heirs of Juancho Ardona v. the law was amended by RA 979 w/c purported to give municipalities the power not only to regulate but likewise to prohibit the operation of nightclubs. HELD: The concept of public use is not limited to traditional purposes for the construction of roads. A single contractor furnishing the stevedoring requirements of a port has in its favor the economy of scale and the maximum utilization of equipment and manpower. a temporary restraining order (TRO) was issued without notice to the other party. HELD: The SC has been most liberal in sustaining ordinances based on general welfare clause. as orginally enacted. granted municipalities the power to regulate the establishment. 1. As resp ct found from the evidence. establish and operate vital industries and. 123 SCRA 569 (1983) F: The petitioners are operators or nightclubs in Bocaue. In this case. bridges. theatrical performances. The contention of pets. Their licenses had expired but they were allowed to continue to operate on the strength of temporary permits. they filed prohibition suits to stop the Mun. corp. On April 28. It is accurate to state then that at present whatever may be beneficially employed for the general welfare satisfies the requirement of public use." Moreover. Taking either for public use or public purpose. RA 938. that due process was violated resulting in a confiscation of private property is likewise without merit. As long as the purpose of the taking is public.g. 1976. 9. roads). filed a petition for certiorari in the SC. Notes: The policy adopted by the Philippine Ports Authority to allow only one organization to operate the arrastre and stevedoring services of each port was upheld by the SC as a valid exercise of police power. corporations the power to prohibit the operation of nightclubs would be to construe it in a way that it violates the constitutional provision that "every bill shall embrace only one subject which shall be expressed in the title thereof. and pay PPA dues. Understandably. circuses and other forms of entertainment. v. the PPA awarded the exclusive contract for stevedoring services to the Ocean Terminal Services Inc (OTSI). effective supervision and control as well as collection and accounting of the govt share of revenues are rendered easier than where there are 23 contractors to oversee. (2) the land was covered by the land reform program. and (3) expropriation would impair the obligation of contracts. one operator" rule makes possible the better supervision. of Bocaue from enforcing an ordinance prohibiting the operation of nightclubs. The petititioners have not shown that the area being developed is land reform area and that the affected persons have been given emancipation patents and certificates of land transfer. HELD: (1) Considering that the previous grant of TRO in favor of pets. It is not confined merely to use by the public at large (e. F: The ordinance was enacted for a two-fold purpose: (1) To enable the City of Mla. Hence. most contractors had been unable to acquire sufficient modern facilities . the pets were operating merely on "hold over"permits. transfer to public ownership utilities and other private enterprises to be operated by the government. VV. Sec. the resp Phil Ports Authority decided to allow only one org. 120 SCRA (1983) Ordinance Prohibiting Barbershops from Rendering Massage Services Valid. Sec. Article III. Villegas. To construe the amendatory act as granting mun. Article XII. upon deposit of an amount equivalent to 10% of the value of the property. and the like. Cruz v. The State may. Certiorari granted. and operation of billiard pools. On May 4. The idea that "public use" means "use by the public" has been discarded. In the second place. then the power of eminent domain comes into play. VV. the multiple contractor system has bred cut-throat competitions in the port . the person in whose favor it was originally issued cannot complain of the lifting of the TRO without prior hearing. They contended that (1) the taking was not for public use. not prohibition. and (3) upon observance of due process.Anglo-Fil Trading Corp. in the awarding of contracts. The petitioners brought suit in the CFI to annul the contract for exclusive service. Public Use Public use is equivalent to public purpose. much less mandatory. The petitioners who are occupants of the lands. The charter of the PTA authorizes it to acquire through condemnation proceedings lands for tourist zone development of a sports complex. based on the report and recommendation of an evaluation committee. 1980. In the first place. maintenance and operation of nightclubs and the like. efficiency and improvement of services. upon payment of just compensation. and prevent cut-throat competition and non-maximal utilization of equipment and manpower. 18. Ct issued a TRO enjoining PPA and OTSI from implementing the exclusive contract. the fact is that the title of the law remained the same so that the power granted to municipalities remains that of regulation. VV. even if it benefit a large group of people short of the public in general (e. Paras. It is enough that it serves a public purpose. In return. However. Due Process and Eminent Domain The taking by the State of private property in an expropriation proceeding must be: (1) for public use. For the "one port. The contract clause has never . Reyes 123 SCRA 220 F: The Philippine Tourism Authority sought the expropriation of 282 Ha of land in Barangay Malubog and Babag in Cebu City. this petition for certiorari. the award of OTSI was the result of a evaluation of performance of existing contractors made by a special committee created by the PPA. While it is true that on 5/21/54. cabarets. maintain efficiency. Later. was made ex parte and w/o bond. the procedures must allow only the capable operator to get the franchise. 124 SCRA 494 (1983) Property Rights Are Subject to the Exercise of Police Power. the recentyly-enacted LGC (BP 337) speaks simply of the power to regulate the establishment. As the TRO was lifted also without hearing. (2) the award would impair the petitioners' contracts with foreign customers. expropriating property for the relocation of squatters). F: The petitioners were among 23 stevedoring and arrastre operators at the Mla South Harbor. collection.

the tax declarations used as basis for the just compensation were made long before the declaration of martial law when the land was much cheaper. The commissioners appointed by the trial court recommended that the San Antonio Development Corp. Guerrero 154 SCRA 461 (1987) F: On December 5. supra. CJ. exercising martial law powers. The government on the other hand contends that the power of eminent domain is inherent in the State and when the legislature or the President through his law-making powers exercises this power. NHA 150 SCRA 89 (1987) F: Petitioners are the owners of two large estates known as the Tambunting Estate and Sunog-Apog in Tondo. HELD: The challenged decrees are unfair in the procedures adopted and the powers given to the NHA. be paid P15. The "public use" requirement is an evolving concept influences by changing conditions. the time of payment was in the 1960's. Teehankee. HELD: The Decree reveals that Mr. the general welfare. the National Housing Authority filed a complaint for expropriation of 25 hectares of land in Antipolo. . Because of the protests of residents of the latter. Register of Deeds 157 SCRA 613 (1988) F: Petitioners bought in 1965 from Carmel Farms Inc. as everyone knows. its task would be relegated to simply stating the lower value of the property as declared either by the owner or the assessor. The Tambunting subdivision is summarily proclaimed a blighted area and directly expropriated by decree without the slightest semblance of a hearing or any proceeding whatsoever. the public use and public necessity of the expropriation and the fixing of the just compensation become political in nature and the courts must respect the decision. leaving only as a judicial question whether in the exercise of such competence. EPZA filed a petition for certiorari. originally called for the expropriation of properties along Cuneta Avenue in Pasay City. the Ministry of Public Highways decided to make the proposed extension pass through Fernando Rein and Del Pan Streets. VV. Guerrero. Not only are the owners given absolutely no opportunity to contest the expropriation. Petitioners claim that there are vast areas of lands in Rizal hundreds of hectares of which are owned by a few landowners only.g. however. The property owner may not interpose objections merely because in their judgment some other property would have been more suitable. being vested in the SC and such inferior courts as may be established by law -.the judicial acts done by him were under the circumstances alien to his office as chief executive. Dulay (1987) for being encroachments on judicial prerogatives. Due process must be observed HELD: Petitioners contend that socialized housing for the purpose of condemnation proceedings is not public use since it will benefit only a handful of people. safety. Art. Dulay 149 SCRA 305 (1987) F: The San Antonio Development Corporation was the owner of a piece of land in LapuLapu City which the EPZA expropriated in 1979. 2. Since he was never vested with judicial power -.been regarded as a barrier to the exercise of the police power and likewise eminent domain. De Knecht v. 1259. Sumulong v. The petitioners contend that the decrees violate their constitutional right to due process and equal protection since by their mere passage their properties were automatically expropriated and they were immediately deprived of the ownership and possession thereof without being given the chance to oppose such expropriation. PD 1669 and PD 1670. or question the amount of payments fixed by the decree. the time of the taking was in the 1920's. 1977. The SC now rules that such singling out of properties does not foreclose judicial scrutiny as to whether such expropriation by legislative act transgresses the due process and equal protection and just compensation guarantees of the Constitution. The expropriation is instant and automatic to take effect immediately upon the signing of the decree. its improvements and capabilities should be considered. The provisions on just compensation found in PD 1224. a piece of land in Caloocan City by virtue of which they were issued a title in their names and they took possession of their property. HELD: The method of ascertaining just compensation under PD 1533 constitutes impermissible encroachment on judicial prerogatives. 154 SCRA 461 (1987). LTA that the power of Congress to designate the particular property to be taken adn how much may be condemned thereof must be duly recognized. Sumulong v. the Commission on Human Settlements recommended the reversion to the original plan. but the decision of the NHA are expressly declared beyond judicial review. EPZA v. Just compensation must be judicially determined Just Compensation Just compensation is the fair and reasonable equivalent of the loss sustained by the owner of the property due to the taking. Tuason v. the the be the Manotok v. They brought this suit in the SC challenging constitutionality of PD 1224. supra). the environment and. President Marcos. no matter how long ago it was taken (e.such power. it is the fair market value of the property measured at the time of the taking. Later on. VV. issued PD 293 cancelling the certificates of titles of Carmel Farms and declaring the lands covered to be open for disposition and sale to members of the Malacañang Association Inc. The test to be applied for a valid expropriation of private lands was the area of the land and not the number of people who stood to be benefitted. PD 1669 and 1670 are declared unconstitutional. No deposit before the taking is required. but the Ministry argued the new route withh save the government P2 million. following the decree. In 1973. Urban renewal or redevelopment and the construction of low-cost housing is recognized as a public purpose. not only because of the expanded concept of public use but also because of specific provisions in the Constitution. in sum. Although the court technically would still have the power to determine the just compensation for the property. All the facts as to the condition of the property and its surroundings. VV. arguing that under PD 1533 the compensation should be the fair and current market value declared by the owner or the market value determined by the assessor. Why should the NHA pick their small lots? Expropriation is not confined to landed estates. Among those lands sought to expropriated are the petitioners' lands. and 1313 are the same provisions which were declared unconstitutional in EPZA v. Rizal pursuant to PD 1224 authorizing expropriation of private lands for socialized housing. the party adversely affected is the victim of partiality and prejudice. Just compensation means the value of the property at the time of the taking. Bautista 100 SCRA 660 (1980) F: The plan to extend EDSA to Roxas Boulevard to be ultimately linked to the Cavite Coastal Road Project. Marcos exercised an obviously judicial function. Shortage in housing is a matter of state concern since it directly and significantly affects public health. VV.00 per square meter. To peg the value of the lots on the basis of those documents which are outdated would be arbitrary and confiscatory. both of which were declared expropriated in two decrees issued by President Marcos. It means a fair and full equivalent for the loss sustained. 1250 of the Civil Code applied only to contractual obligations). The State acting through the NHA is vested with broad discretion to designate the property. in the Ministerio and Amigable cases. Manila. VV. and using the conversion rates at the time of taking (because according to those cases. There is not provision for any interest to be paid upon unpaid installments. In this case. concurring: The judgment at bar now learly overturns the majority ruling in JM Tuason v. whichever is lower. 3.

in 1983. and disposition of property and its increments. 1. 193 SCRA 1 (1991) F: For the construction of its 230 KV Mexico-Limay transmission lines. Art. III. Charo. on one hand. upon recommendation of the economic and planning agency. it appears that it was based on supervening events that occured after the 1980 decision of the SC on the De Knecht case was rendered. the SC reversed the lower court decision and granted the relief asked for by De Knecht ruling that the expropriation was arbitrary. when the Government moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground that the Legislature has since enacted BP 340 expropriating the same properties for the same purpose. without loss of title or possession. it is to be remembered that progress and development are carried out for the benefit of the people. and to expansion and growth. For these reasons. The Congress shall. Appeal. Republic v. reserve to citizens of the Philippines or to corporations or associations at least sixty per centum of whose capital is owned by such citizens. 2. No further action was taken despite the SC decision until two years later. Such expropriation proceeding may be undertaken by the petitioner not only by voluntary negotiation with the land owners but also by taking appropriate court action or by legislation. They shall also participate in policy and decision-making process affecting the rights and benefits as may be provided by law. VV. the power of eminent domain results in the taking or appropriation of the title to. The factor of functionality strongly militates against the choice of Fernando Rein and Del Pan streets. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measure that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity. including the right to strike in accordance with law. the owner of the property expropriated is entitled to a just compensation which should neither be more nor less. economic. Art. De Knecht. and possession of. Considering the nature and effect of the installation of the transmission lines. Napocor was constrained to file eminent domain proceedings. No person shall be deprived of life. and shall enforce their mutual compliance therewith to foster industrial peace. D. XIII. XIII. reduce social. 182 SCRA 142 (1990) F: De Knecht was one of the owners of several properties along the Fernando Rein-Del Pan streets which the Government sought to expropriate to give way to the extension of EDSA and the construction of drainage facilities. The State shall regulate and exercise authority over foreign investments within its national jurisdiction and in accordance with its national goals and priorities. or such higher percentage as Congress may prescribe. Id. ISSUE: W/N petitoner should be made to pay simple easement fee or full compensation for the land traversed by its transmissin lines. It is unquestionable that real property may. Gutierrez. the SC ruled that "Normally. Economic equality Art. through expropriation. 10. Charo. and progress and development. Thus the anterior decision of the Court must yield to the subsequent legislative fiat. In the grant of rights. Sec. humane conditions of work. XII. They shall be entitle to security of tenure. xxx . the State shall give preference to qualified Filipinos. local and overseas. RULING: While it is true that said final judgment of this Curt on the subject becomes the law of the case between the parties. the said decision is no obstacle to the legislative arm of the Government in thereafter making its own independent assessment of the circumstances then pravailing as to the propriety of undertaking the expropriation of properties in question and thereafter by enacting the corresponding legislation as it did in this case. Art. the State shall regulate the acquisition. PLDT. The Court agrees in the wisdom and necessity of enacting BP 340. The State shall regulate the relations between workers and employers. The price or value of the land and its character at the time of taking by the Govt. whenever it is possible to make the assessment. and political inequalities and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good. 1. HELD: The choice of Fernando Rein and Del Pan streets is arbitrayr and should not receive judicial aprpoval. Just equiivalent has always been understood to be the just and complete equivalent of the loss which the owner of the thing expropriated has to suffer by reason of the expropriation. the expropriated property. than the money equivalent of said property. and promote full employment and equality of employment opportunities for all. and peaceful concerted activities. when the national interest dictates. Sec. De Knecht filed a case to restrain the Government from proceeding with the expropriation. While the issue would seem to boil down to a choice between people." In this case. When BP 340 was passed. the limitations imposed by the NPC against the use of the land (that no plant higher than 3 meters is allowed below the lines) for an indefinite period deprives private respondents of ts ordinary use. ownership. Sec. it is equally true that the right of petitioner to take private properties for public use upon payment of just compensation is so provided in the Constitution and the laws. organized and unorganized. Moreover. The Human Settlements Commission concluded that the cost factor is so minimal that it can be disregarded in making a choice between the two lines. while the factor of social and economic impact bears grievously on the residents of Cuneta Avenue. liberty or property without due process of law. The State shall promote the principle of shared responsibility between workers and employers and the preferential use of voluntary modes in settling disputes including conciliation. Her prayer was denied by the lower court but upon certiorari. The social impact factor which persuaded the Court to consider this extension to be arbitrary had disappeared. Napocor's lines have to pass the lands belonging to respondents. The case was remanded to the lower court. NAPOCOR v.The government filed expropriation proceedings against the owners of Fernando Rein and Del Pan streets. be subjected to an easement of right of way. are the criteria for determining just cmpensation. certain areas of investments. The Congress shall enact measures that will encourage the formation and operation enterprises whose capital is wholly owned by Filipinos. on the other. recognizing the right of labor to its just share in the fruits of production and the right of enterprises to reasonable returns on investments. Equal Protection Art.. Sec. Unsuccessful with its negotiations for the acquisition of the right of way easements. Sec. 1. among whom was petitioner. but no cogent reason appears why said power may not be availed of to impose only a burrden upon the owner of the condemned property. use. The lower court denied tthe motion. It shall guarantee the rights of all workers to self-organization. RULING: In RP v. collective bargaining and negotiations. the easement is definitely a taking under the power of eminent domain. nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws. The State shall afford full protection to labor. 2. Sec. To this end. and living wage. privileges and concessions covering the national economy and patrimony. 3. The promotion of social justice shall include the commitment to create economic opportunities based on freedom of initiative and self-reliance. XIII.

as taxpayer. Sec. and deprived aliens of the right to earn a common livelihood. Sec. 10. 3. not invalid. Ichong v. the disqualification of candidates convicted or simply charged with national security offenses was struck down as unconstitutional. VV. 5. Hernandez. Sec. as taxpayer and voter. sec. insurrection or rebellion or similar offenses. VV. Comelec. Dumlao v. Art. and exclusive economic zone. 4 of Batas Blg. The SC noted that this violated the uniformity of taxation. the SC invalidated a city ordinance imposing a P500 permit fee for aliens who wish to engage in the pursuit of an occupation. Villegas v. Hiu Chiung Tsai Pao Ho 86 SCRA 270 (1978) F: An ordinance of the City of Manila prohibited the employment of aliens in any occupation or business unless they first secured a permit from the Mayor of Manila and paid a fee of P500. In Vera v. Sec. Hiu Chiong Isai Po Ho. to name a few. The Constitution itself acknowledges this in various places . was struck down as unconstitutional on the ground that it did not require the same labeling in the case of filled milk (coco-fat added) At that time of the decision thought. for it gives younger blood the opportunity to run the local government. C. pleading. thus denying them the equal protection of the laws. (1) No person shall be detained solely by reason of his political beliefs and aspirations. In Villegas v. HELD: The ordinance is a tax measure. 95 SCRA 392 (1980). and procedure in all courts. Comelec. 86 SCRA 270 (1978). it failed to consider substantial differences in situations among aliens and for that reason violates the rule on uniformity of taxation. Rights of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court. Sec. and reserve its use and enjoyment exclusively to Filipino citizens. XII. It does not violate equal protection.. Sec. Free access to the courts and quasi-judicial bodies and adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty. from which the fatty part has been removed totally or in part or put on sale in the Philippines shall be clearly and legibly marked on its immediate containers with the words: This milk is not suitable for nourishment for infants less than one year of age. Comelec 95 SCRA 392 (1980) F: Romeo Igot. In Ichong v. increase. territorial sea. HELD: Sec. For the protection of the law can be observed by the national interest. the Integrated Bar. They have no personal or substantial interest at stake and therefore no locus standi. Social equality . 2 par. Political equality Art. an alien. employed in Manila." Petitioner. because of public interest. the law was already inoperative. especially when they are admitted to the country as immigrants. 169 of the NIRC requiring manufacturers of skimmed milk (non-fat) to put on its label the warning that the milk is harmful for infants. Sec. There are areas of economic activity which can be limited to Filipinos. brought suit and obtained judgment from the CFI declaring the ordinance null and void. His petition is a mere request for advisory opinion. Art. 1155 (1937) But there are areas where aliens cannot be kept away for the simple reason that they cannot be deprived of a common means of livelihood. 169 is being enforced only against respondent manufacturers of filled milk but not against manufacturers of skimmed milk. IX. Finally. The retired employee in effect declares himself tired and unavailable for the same government work. VV. 2. The purpose of the law is to allow the emergence of younger blood in local governments and therefore. 11. 52 disqualifying retired elective local officials who have received retirement benefits and would have been 65 years old at the start of the term. 1155 (1937). They brought an action in the CFI for a declaration of their rights in respect of section 169 of the Tax Code. VIII. and shall not diminish. XII. practice. shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade. 201 Phil. however. Igot c. shall not be qualified to run for the same elective local office from which he has retired. 95 SCRA 392 (1980) F: Sec. VV. 90 SCRA 379 (1979). city ot municipal official who has received payment of the retirement benefits to which he is entitled under the law and who shall have been 65 years of age at the commencement of the term of office to which he seeks to be elected. Neither can they sue as taxpayers because the statute does not involve disbursement of public funds. Sec. sued for prohibition to enjoin enforcement of the law on the ground that it was contrary to the equal protection and due process guarantee of the Constitution. Cuevas. 169 applied only to skimmed milk and not to filled milk. Hernandez. 201 Phil. 95 SCRA 392 (1980). the question should be resolved. the SC upheld the validity of sec. sued for prohibition to enjoin enforcement of BP 52. 2). HELD: Dumlao has not been injured by the application of the provision. the admission to the practice of law. Governor of Nueva Vizcaya. The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: xxx (5) Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases. In imposing a flat rate of P500. the ordinance denies aliens due process and the equal protection of the laws. voter and member of the bar. 169 of the Tax Code has been repealed by RA 344. Art. or modify substantive rights. Respondent. for violating the presumption of innocence and thus ultimately the equal political protection. Comelec. the SC upheld the validity of the law which nationalized the retail trade. HELD: Neither petitioner has been convicted nor charged with acts of disloyalty nor disqualified from being candidates for local elective positions. It also lays down no guide for granting/denying the permit and therefore permits the arbitrary exercise of discretion by the Mayor. 18. III. In Igot v. No petition seeking his disqualification has been filed against him. 10). certain areas of investment (Art. This provision required that "all condensed skimmed milk in whatever form.exploitation of marine wealth (Art. 4 of BP 52 provides in part that "any retired elective provincial. Bona fide candidates to public office shall be free from any form of harassment and discrimination. At any rate. III. In Dumlao v. Sec. Vera v. and Alfredo Salapantan Jr. and legal assistance to the underprivileged. 4 of which provides for the disqualification as candidate of any person convicted of subversion. Nevertheless. Cuevas 90 SCRA 379 (1979) F: Respondents are engaged in the manufacture and sale of filled milk products.The State shall protect the nation's marine wealth in its archipelagic waters.

there was no case pending against the petitioner. went to the office of the petitioner. It does not appear that he examined the applicant and his witnesses. PNs and other articles were seized and retained in the possession of the Anti-Usury Board. XIII. and disposition of property and its increments. In the instant case. pet. lists. Chief of Staff 133 SCRA 800 (1984) Illegal search of newspaper offices and press freedom F: On the basis of two warrants issued by the RTC of QC. seized were not delivered to the court w/c issued the warrant. It is but a submission to the authority of the law. cannot be waived by anyone except by the person whose rights are invaded or one who is expressly authorized to do so in his or her behalf. the prop. III. proceeded w/ the execution thereof. Probable cause for a search is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. To this end. accused of violating the Anti-Usury Law. commanding any officer of the law "to search the person. economic. the resp. Broad statement in the application is a mere conclusion of law and does not satisfy the requirement of probable cause. The delay in making the demand for the return of the documents seized is not such as to result im implied. RAM. Almeda. & (4) the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized. use. (1) it must be issued upon probable cause." On the same date. Certainly. houses. she was sick & was not present when the warrant was served upon Salas. chits. . the offices of the Metropolitan Mail and the We Forum were search and printing machines. Bu motion. the constitutional immunity from unreasonable searches and seizures. When addressed to a newspaper publisher or editor. the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce. 1. All that the judge did was to accept as true the affidavit made by agent Almeda. judge of CFI denied the petitioner's motion for the reason that though the SW was illegal. together w/ the SW. Receipt books. 1. & the restoration of certain documents alleged to have been illegally seized by an agent of the Anti-Usury Board. Sec. judge. as shown in the warrant itself. REQUIREMENTS OF FAIR PROCEDURE A. charging usurious rates. except upon lawful order of the court. the averment that the warrant was issued primarily for exploration purposes is not w/o basis. The resolution of 10/5/37 & the order of 1/3/38 are sought. who was ill and confined at that time. in his application. right. (3) that said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right. 65 Phil. if any. 70 Phil. the existence of probable cause was determined not by the judge himself but by the applicant. the State shall regulate the acquisition. ownership. Pasion vda. 141 (1940) F: By virtue of the sworn application of Almeda. house or store of the petitioner for certain books. shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. and particularly describing the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized. The right of the people to be secure in their persons. Petitioners brought and action to annul the warrants and compel the return of the things seized. 3. Salas. Requirements for Search Warrants Yee Sue Kuy v. The applicant. Almeda. de Garcia v. Separate criminal cases were filed against petitioner. The Congress shall give highest priority to the enactment of measure that protect and enhance the right of all the people to human dignity. HELD: Petitioners' thesis is impressed with merit. Almeda. a SW was issued to search the store and premises of the petitioner. By resolution. publication and distribution of the newspapers as well as papers and other literature seized on the ground that they were used in the commission of the crime of subversion. II." The witness he presentted testified before the judge and swore that he knew that YEE was lending without a license because he personally investigated the victims who secured loans from the petitioner. Searches and Seizures Art. challenged the legality of the SW and the devolution of the documents demanded. Even accepting the description of the prop. the Chief agent of the Anti-Usury Board. there was a waiver on the part of the petitioner. (3) in the determination of probable cause. Their affidavits were sufficient for. 2. (2) that the person involved had knowledge. Two packages of records & a locked filing cabinet containing several papers and documents were seized by Almeda and a receipt thereof issued by him to Salas. shall be inviolable. Sec. & w/o the presence of the petitioner. waiver. receipts. 689. IS THERE A WAIVER? No express waiver. IS THERE AN IMPLIED WAIVER? None. Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section. Arrests. Almeda. Considering that at the time the warrant was issued. ISSUE: W/n the requirements for the issuance of valid SW were complied with. to be nullified in these proceedings. documents & other papers relating to her activities as userer. It is true that the petitioner did not object to the legality of the search when it was made. Tarlac. and political inequalities and remove cultural inequities by equitably diffusing wealth and political power for the common good. reduce social. (1938) F: This is a petition for mandamus presented to secure the annulment of a search warrant (SW) & 2 orders of the resp. an agent of the Anti-Usury Board. Instead. paraphernalia. accompanied by a captain of the PC. or when public safety or order requires otherwise as prescribed by law. HELD: Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures is declared a popular right and for a SW to be valid. actual or constructive. thereunder. She could not have objected bec. (2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or another. under oath or affirmation. Petitioner demanded the return of the documents seized.Art. 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. obtained from the justice of the peace of Tarlac. they were turned over to the resp. to be seized to be sufficient and on the assumption that the receipt issued is sufficiently detailed w/in the meaning of the law. The existence of probable cause has been determined by the justice of the peace before issuing the warrant complained of. The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable. the judge must examine. it must appear first that (1) the right exists. Burgos v. the application for a warrant must contain a specification stating with particularity the alleged subversive materials he has published or intending to publish. Locsin. being a personal one. a SW. papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose. The failure on the part of the petitioner and her bookkeeper to resist or object to the execution of the warrant does not constitute an implied waiver of the consti. RULING: YES. To constitute a waiver of constitutional right. Sec. motor vehicles and other articles used in the printing. they could be held liable for perjury. as required by law. of the existence of such right. and after showing the SW to the petitioner's bookeeper. swore that "he made his own personal investigation and ascertained that petitioner is lending money without a license. provincial fiscal & used by him in building up cases against petitioner. Charo.

the deposition of de Leon and his witness. judge was invalid. marijuana dried stalks which are suject of the offense stated above. the same are deemed inadmissible against them. Olaes v. Seggerman for violation of the provisons of the NIRC. 3 fragmentation grenades were found in the bathroom of the office of Dr. The warrrant was issued for violation of PD 1866 which punishes several offenses. In People V.. RULING: While it is true that the caption of the SW states that it is in connection with "the violation of RA 6425. and that any statement he might make could be used against him. mimeographing machines and tape recorders. The probable cause required under the Constitution for the issuance of a search warrant must be in connection with one specific offense. before issuing the warrant. Prudente. or appointed by the court upon petition either of the detainee himself or by anyone on his behalf. video machines and tapes. Corro v." executed by P/Lt. Lising 137 SCRA 341 (1985) F: Respondent Judge issued a search warrant for the seizure of articles allegedly used by petitioner in committing the crime of sedition. upon applicatin of P/Maj. if any. Examiner de Leon filed an application for a SW against Bache & Co. Charo. with reasonable effort. While there was failure to state the particular provision of the law violated. CA. State of Texas. As Judge Ruiz was then conducting a hearing. in the case at bar. ISSUE: W/N the PASTF is "such other officer as may be authorized by law" to issue warrants under the 1973 Constitition. supported by a "Deposition of Witness. (2) As to the claim that the SW failed to particularly describe the place to be searched. by any person on his behalf. Clerk of Court. Seized were printed copies of the Philippine Times. The articles seized by virtue of the SW consisting of dried marijuana were admitted as evidence for violation of RA 6425 or Dangerous Drugs Act." These requirements were even made stricter under the 1987 Constitution which provides that the rights of a person under custodial investigation cannot be waived except when made in writing and in the presence of counsel. Prudente v. 155 SCRA 486 (1987) F: Petitioners claim that the SW issued by resp. or anyone he chooses by the most expedient means . The language used is all embracing as to include all conceivable words and equipment of petitioner regardless of whether they are legal or illegal. shall be inadmissible in evidence. of Military Science and Tactics on the ground floor and the Office of the President at the 2nd floor and the other rooms in that floor. newspaper dummies. As to the extrajudicial confessions of the accused. explosives and ammunitions are punished in different sections of the PD. HELD: The statements made in the affidavits are mere conclusions of law and do not satisfy the requirement of probable cause. (Phil. Furthermore. In Stanford v. No custodial investigation shall be conducted unless it be in the presence of counsel engaged by the person arrested. This is important in arriving at a sound inference on the all-importatnt question of w/n there was probable cause. RULING: NO. and its pres. (3) There was also an issue as to w/n the SW was issued for one specific offense. The judge did not have the opportunity to observe tthe demeanor of the deponents and to propound initial and follow-up questions which his judicial mind. Moreover. It shall be the responsibility of the arresting officer to see to it that this is accomplished. Dimagmaliw. Charo. a relative. VV. However. the SW described the place as PUP. the US SC declared this type of warrant void. The fact that the word "etc. the Court declared that: " At the time the person is arrested. it shall be the duty of the arresting officer to inform him of the reason for the arrrest and he must be shown the warrant of arrest. for notwithstanding that possession of firearms.Another factor that makes the search warrants constitutionally objectionable is that they are in the nature of general warrants. and the judge must.) v. Any statement obtained in violation of the procedure herein laid down. Galit. the judge did not examine Angeles in the form of searching questions and answers. The right to counsel may be waived but the wiaver shall not be valid unless made with the assistance of counsel. The search warrant under consideration was in the nature of a general warrant which is objectionable. People. was in the best position to conceive. Bache & Co. What appears on the record are leading questions answereable by yes or no. In enforcing the warrant. in whole or in part. The petitioner moved to quash the warrant but his motion was denied. in writing and under oath. ammunitions and explosives in the premises of the PUP which were supposed to be in possession of Dr. VV. Ruiz. . RULING: NO. The judge did not personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. the warrant itself qualified the description of the offense as "illegal possession of firearms. etc. Presidential Anti-Dollar Salting Task Force v. They also question the extrajudicial confession taken from them without according them the right to assistance of a counsel. of Internal Revenue through Rev. Angeles. ascertain and identify the place intended to be searched." This is deemed sufficient. was taken by the Dep. The deposition was later read to the judge who asked the witness to take an oath as to the truth of his statements. Here." was added to refer to ammunitions and explosives did not violate the rule on single offense. Prudente." This suffices to cure the defect. they are treated as belonging to a single specie. The judge then signed the SW and accordingly issued the same. personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers.or by letter or messenger. Logronio. Dayrit. typewriters. The person arrested shall have the right to communicate with his lawyer. the SW specifically described the place to be searched and the things to be seized. whether exculpatory or inculpatory. there is no question at all that the specific offense alleged to have been committed as basis for determining probable cause is alleged." it is clearly recited in the text thereof that "there is probable cause to believe that Olaes of Olongapo City has in his possession and control. An exception to the rule that a warant shall be issued for a single offense is when existing laws prescribe a single punishment for various offenses. Charo. 180 SCRA 69 (1990) F: Judge Dayrit. Dimagmaliw merely stated in his application that his knowledge was based "on gathered infrmation from verified sources. on account of his training. ISSUE: W/n the searrch warrant was valid. he shall be informed of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to counsel. ISSUE: W/n the requirements for the issuance of valid SW were complied with. (1) The warant was not issued on the basis of personal knowledge of the applicant and his witness. the SC ruled that the description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can. 37 SCRA 823 (1971) F: The Com. with its address and specifically mentioned the offices of the "Dept. on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements together with any affidavit submitted. issued a search warrant for the search and seizure of arms. 171 SCRA 348 (1989) F: The PASTF was created by virtue of PD 1936 to serve as the President's arm called upon to combat the vice of dollar salting or the blackmarketing and salting of foreign exchange." The same holds true for the affidavit of Angeles." Although the specific section of the law is not stated.by telephone if possible . the complainant and any witnesses he may produce.

689. Hence. warrants of arrest. not being a judge. quasi-judicial responsiibilities relative to offenses punishable by PD 1883. Probable cause is such facts and circumstances as would reasonably make a prudent man believe that a crime have been committed and that the documents or things sought to be searched and seized are in the possession of the person against whom the warrant is sought. It was not until the case of Viva v. the rule is: One crime. (1938) In Stonehill v. even assuming the grant of such power under sec. 65 Phil. On the basis of their personal knowledge of the facts that they are testifying to. it is only judges and no other. Petitioner filed this suit for prohibition. 20 SCRA 385 (1967). the neutrality and independence comparable to the impartiality presumed of a judicial officer. The Sec. for although it restores the 1935 provision. The Court noted that unlike in the Philippine Bill of 1902 and the Jones Law of 1916 in which the right to be secure is one's person. The provisions of PD 1920 and EO 1022. a prosecutor is naturally interested in the success of his case. papers and effects was granted only to citizens. are the dying vestiges of authoritarian rule in its twilights moments." The effect of the 1987 Constitution on this power is still uncertain. how could it be determined if the person against whom the warrant was issued was probably guilty thereof? In truth. while it can issue a warrant for the purpose of implementing an order. Salazar v. a distinction already hinted at by the Qua Chee Gan ruling. being used or intended to be used as the means of commiting illegal recruitment. unconstitutional and of no force and effect. unconstitutional. only a judge can issue a warrant. Under Art. sees nothing that will reveal a legislative intendement to confer upon the body. par. This makes to our mind and to that extent. This order was enforced on 26 January 1988. it became a popular right available to citizens and aliens alike. Admi. of Labor) validly issue warrants of serach and seizure (or arrest ) under Art. following a final order of deportation. we declare Art. to conduct an inquiry preliminary to a judicial recourse. The "responsible officer" referred to under the Cosntitution is one not only possessing the necessary skills and competence but more significantly. Unlike a magistrate. 9 SCRA 27 (1963). In other words. and not. after which he issued the search warrant in question. 38 of the Labor Code? HELD: NO. one warrant. there can be no valid search warrant. to summon an alien in order to answer charges filed against him. of Labor . when he is neither. as the accused's adversary and his accuser. Its undertaking is simply to determine w/n probable cause exists to warrant the filing of charges with the proper court. the offensive and much abused phrase "and other responsible officer as may be authorized by law" in the 1973 Constitution has been removed In Qua Chee Gan v. Existence of probable cause. having verified that she had no license to operate a recruitment agency. asked the BIR agent and his witnesses if they affirmed what they what they testified to. the NIRC. Charo. and to recommend action of appropriate authorities. 39 of the Rev. To permit him to issue warrrants and indeed. meaning to say. Achacoso. in reviewing the powers of the PASTF under its enabling law. he went back to his chambers and finding that the examination was finished. Ruiz. may no longer issue search or arrest warrants. Locsin. like the clerk of court. He further ordered the seizure of the documents and paraphernalias. Although his office "is to see to it that justice if done and not necessarily to secure the conviction of the accused. So said the Court in Bache and Co. d. 42 search warrants were issued for alleged violation of Central Bank Laws. this was a fishing expedition. and the Revised Penal Code. the power to order the arrest of a person has been unmistakably a judicial power. or was meant to exercise. 183 SCRA 145 F: Pursuant to the powers vested by PD 1920 and EO 1022. To establish the requirement of probable cause. 38. Suzette. the Tariff and Customs Code. the authorities must go through the judicial process. III. The exception is in cases of deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens. The examination conducted by the judge takes the form of searching questions. Under the 1973 Constitution. (not in VV's revised outline) a. After personally examining under oath or affirmation the complainant and his witness. 24 SCRA 155 (1968) that the SC settled the doubt and ruled that the Deportation Board could only issue an order of arrest to carry out a deportation order. After he was through with the hearing. the Deportation Board was deemed included in the phrase "other responsible officer authorized by law. PD 1636 as amended by PD 2002. Issue: May the POEA (or the Sec. c. is to make him both judge and jury in his own right. The Court agrees that PASTF exercises. Code since under the 1935 Constitution. Deportation Board. the judge suspended the hearing and directed the branch clerk to examine and take the testimony of the witnesses in his chambers. prosecutorial powers. which violated the sanctity of domicile and privacy of communications. The requirement that the judge must personally examine the complainant and his witnesses means that the actual examination cannot be delegated to someone else. when the BIR agent and his witnesses arrived in court in the middle of a hearing. for the purpose of deportation. its intent seems clearly to confer the power of issuing warrants to judges alone. the SC doubted the power of the President to issue an order of arrest. who may issue warrants of arrest and search. it cannot issue a warrant for the purpose of prosecution. under the 1935 Constitution. As determined by a judge Under the 1987 Constitution. In this case. house. Diokno. (Phil) v. C of the Labor Code. 38 of the Labor Code. 37 SCRA 823 (1971). now embodied in Art. Montesa. The Court. and on that ground. b. . POEA Administrator Achacoso ordered the closure of the recruitment agency of Horty Salazar. Without probable cause. See Pasion vda. de Garcia v. it cannot be said to be a neutral and detached judge to determine the existence of probable cause for purposes of arrest or search. whom the President of the Commissioner of Immigration may order arrested. Sec 2 of the 1987 Constitution. To that extent.RULING: NO. The SC voided the warrants on the ground that it was impossible for the judge to have found probable cause in view of the number of laws alleged to have been violated by the petitioner. How could he even know what particular provision of each law had been violated? If he did not know this." he stands invariably. It was even more doubtful if the President could delegate such a power to the Deportation Board.

Only Lo and Lim were convicted. wagon or automobile for contraband goods. thus making the warrants general warrants. Tia was discharged as a state witness. otherwise known as "shabu". xxx" Except in the case of a search of a dwelling house. In Burgos v. inclosure. the offensive material need not be set out in full. The search warrant must describe particularly describe the place to be searched and the things to be seized. Chief of Staff. w/o a SW is unreasonable is in its final anaylysis to be determined as a judicial question in view of all the circumstances under w/c it is made. leaflets. pass through or search any land. enforcing and/or implementing the questioned order. There is no question that when a child has been reported kidnapped in a community. injunction. 2. & his companion policemen did not have to make any search before they seized the 2 trucks and their cargo. & duly deputized agent of the Bureau of Customs. articles. in Corro v. . Mago. for the transport of metamphetamine hydrochloride. filed by Papa. 137 SCRA 541 (1985). The circumstance of the case clearly show that the serach in question was made as regards a moving vehicle. Issue: W/N the search and seizure was legal. no unfettered discretion must be granted to him. Alagao. they boarded the taxis at the airport which were apprehended by CIS operatives. restraining the resp. 133 SCRA 800 (1984). Papa v. subversive documents." "xxx Whether search of and seizure from an automobile upon a highway or other public place. w/o SW issued by a competent court. were charged with a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act. than if the goods were searched for the ideas they contain (as when a "subversive newspaper is sought). the police can stop all cars and check if the detained child is in any one of them. Villamiel. The matter is different if goods were searched and seized because of their intrinsic quality (as when they are stolen or smuggled). acting upon a reliable info. day from the customs zone of the port of Mla. inj. Pending the determination of this case. & the 2 trucks. already misdeclared and undervalued. reiterating the 1937 case of Rodriguez v. conducted surveillance at gate no. Mago & Lonopa filed w/ the CFI-Mla. Lising. judge from further proceeding in any manner whatsoever in said case. the description which read "subversive documents. action for prohibition. Claiming to have been prejudiced by the seizure & detention of the 2 trucks & their cargo.The determination of the reasonableness of the judicial warrant must be based on the affidavit of one who has personal knowledge of the facts to which he testifies. Judge from executing. chief of police of Mla. a more detailed description of the physical features of the item is required to avoid delegating the appreciation of ideas. the search and seizure of "printed copies and dummies of Philippine Times. consisting of 9 bales of goods. tape recorders. a petition for mandamus w/ restraining order or prel. Case. 193 SCRA 122 F: Peter Lo .. customs agents are specifically authorized to search and seize vehicles even without a warrant. Their luggages were subsequently searched where the tea bags were opened and found to contain shabu. where it is not practicable to secure the warrant bec. the warrant is void. a valid warrant was not necessary to effect the search on appellant and his co-accused. Mirasol Notes." was again invalidated for the description was not at all particular or specific. we note that petitioner Alagao. & loaded on 2 trucks. Pet. Police Dept. leaflets. apprehend a suspected criminal) and the circumstances (e.. box or envelope. People v. HELD: Pet. papers to promote the objective of the Movement for a Free Philippines. banners. One of the exceptions thereto is a search of a moving vehicle. Mago. w/c authorized the rlease under bond of certain goods w/c were seized & held by petitioners in conncection w/ the enforcement of the Tarrif and Customs Code (TCC) but w/c were claimed by resp. In the latter case. wharehouse. When it comes to printed matters. w/o mentioning the need of a SW. Checkpoints are valid in some instances depending on the purpose (e.g. that the goods were seized by members of the Mla. But even if there was a search. In Corro v. HELD: YES That search and seizure must be supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute rule. thus making the warrant a general warrant. as to the effect that a certain shipment of personal effects. motorboat. The testimony cannot be based on mere belief.) RAM. & upon orders of petitioner Papa." (Peo. Thus. The load of 2 trucks. 22 SCRA 857 (1968) F: This is an orig. judge. and thus the search warrant issued was not valid. v. 1 of the customs zone. or any person on board. In the instant case. It is enough if it specifies the issues and the title of the articles. Chief of Staff. Upon arrival from Hongkong. the Light a Fire Movement. alleging among others. Therefore. and typewriters. persons exercising police authority under the Customs law may effect search and seizure w/o a SW in the enforcement of customs law. contrary to law. In the Tariff and Customs Code. et. al. Otherwise. the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction in w/c the warrant must be sought. "The guaranty of freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures is construed as recognizing a necessary difference before a search of a dwelling house or other structure in respect of w/c a SW may readily be obtained and a search of a ship. and thus threaten free expression. or stop and search and examine any vehicle. search and examine any vessel or aircraft and any trunk. this Court issued a writ of prel. and also to inspect. store or building. & to prohibit resp. When Search May Be Made without a Warrant (a) When search is made of moving vehicles The reason is the person may escape easily if a warrant has to be applied for the mean time. in Burgos v. and the April 6 Movement" were held not to be particular descriptions. handbills. there is still authority to the effect that no SW would be needed under the circumstances obtaining in the instant case.. The instruction to seize "subversive materials" is not valid because the determination of whether a material is subversive or not is not for the police officer to decide. The TCC does not require said SW in the instant case. the testimony based on investigation reports that certain items in the Philippine Times were subversive were held to be not personal knowledge. Martin Alagao & his companion policemen had authority to effect the seizure w/o any SW issued by a competent court. Failure to state with particularity the place to be searched and items to be seized makes the warrant used for fishing evidence (a general warrant) which is void. praying for the annulment of the order issued by resp. & certiorari w/ prel. not being a dwelling house. package. inj. the testimony based on a military report that the newspaper We Forum was used for subversive were held to be not a personal knowledge and so was inadmissible. Lo Ho Wing. Police Dept. printed matters.g. etc. e.. The Code authorizes persons having police authority under Sec. probable cause that the criminal is inside the car). The drug was contained in tea bags inside tin cans which were placed inside their luggages. would be released the ff. beast or person suspected of holding or conveying any dutiable or prohibited article introduec into the Phils. Lising. Neither can it be based on a report. 2703 "to enter. head of the counter-intelligence unit of the Mla. Likewise. who turned out to be a " deep penetration agent" of the CIS in its mission to bust the drug syndicate . together with co-accused Lim Cheng Huat alias Antonio Lim and Reynaldo Tia. were seized on instructions of the Chief of Police.

In any case. however. The arrest took place at 11:30 a. necessary for the witnesses themselves. 1984. concurring: The better rule is to limit a warrantless search of a person who is lawfully arrested to his person at the time of and incident to his arrest and to "dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense. was searched and some documents seized. It is thus in the nature of a general warrant. her premises were searched and 428 documents. and if the documents in the apartment were 2 blocks away.. therefore. (Mata v. not separated by time or place from the arrest. It is correct to say. Cruz Pano. judge did was question Capt. there is no longer any danger that the captured may turn against the captor. (Rules of Court. a search warrant could not be made. Sec.A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of an offense. who both claimed to be "intelligence informers. of August 6.It was firmly established from the factual findings of the court that the authorities had reasonable ground to believe that appellant would attempt to bring in contraband and transport within the country. It does not specify what the subversive books and instructions are and what the manuals not otherwise available to the public contain to make them subversive. (c) When things seized are within plain view of a searching party Roan v. 139 SCRA 152 (1985). all that resp." (Rule 126. 12) Since the search was not an incident of an arrest as it was in fact made under a void general warrant. To be valid. as an incident of an arrest.. which must still be present in the case. Judge Cruz Paño issued a search warrant for rebellion against Milagros. HELD: Considering the positions of the parties (Sol-Gen offered no objection). There is absent a definite guideline as to what items might lawfully be seized. together w/ the affidavit presented to him. Reconsidered. the important thing is that there was probable cause to conduct the warrantless search. He did not take the applicant's deposition in writing and attach them to the record.. Milagros asked for suppression of the evidence on the ground that it was illegally obtained. Such written deposition is necessary in order that the Judge may be able to properly determine the existence or nonexistence of the probable cause. Still and all. Even assuming then that it would have suffied to take the deposition only of the witnesses and not of the applicant himself." The suggestion is that he would not have asked any questions at all if the affidavit had already been completed when it was submitted to him. The belief was based on intelligence reports gathered from surveillance activities on the suspected syndicate. HELD: The search warrant is void because it fails to describe with particularity the things to be seized. RULING: Search warrant issued by resp. he did not ask his own searching questions. standing alone. that is. VV. the reconstituted SC granted the motion for reconsideration and held that just because there was a valid arrest did not mean that the search was likewise valid. the motion for partial reconsideration is granted." and only bec. charges of subversion and rebellion were filed but the fiscal's office merely charged her and Nolasco with illegal possession of subversive materials. The law allows the arresting officer to search a person validly arrested (by frisking him for instance) because (a) a weapon held by the arrested person may be turned against his captor and (b) he may destroy the proof of the crime. Sec. because it was an incident of a valid arrest. Teehankee.) A person arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything that proves the commission of the offense. if the arrested officer has to first apply for a search warrant from a judge. Cruz Paño 139 SCRA 152 (1985) F: Milagros Aguilar-Roque was arrested together with Cynthia Nolasco by the Constabulary Security Group. But such knowledge was insufficient to enable them to fulfill the requiremnents for the issuance of a search warrant. judge on 5/10/84. NPA and NDF. If the basis for allowing incidental searches is looked into. that the complainant himself was not subjected to a similar interrogation. Depositions were taken of the complainant's 2 witnesses in addition to the affidavit executed by them. was insufficient to justify the issuance of the warrant sought. a portable typewriter and 2 boxes were seized. CJ. The search warrant described the things to be seized as "Documents. The petitioner claims that no depositions were taken by the resp. but this is not entirely true. the search was conducted 30 minutes after the arrest. the place of premises where the arrest was made can also be searched without a search warrant. In Nolasco v. Nolasco v. and within the time of the arrest. A study of the deposition taken from witnesess Esmael Morada and Jesus Tohilida.m. It follows that the search can only be made within the area of control of the arrested person. the search must be "incidental" to the arrest. Search incident to lawful arrest. But the seizure of the articles could be justified as an incident of a valid arrest.) The applicant was asking for the issuance of the SW on the basis of mere hearsay and not of info. Rule 126. without a search warrant. Bayona. thus giving the officers discretion regarding what articles they should seize. But after the EDSA revolution. He limited himself to the contents of the affidavit. one can see that this situation is not one involving a valid incidental search. At 12:00 noon. contending that Milagros Aguilar Roque was not lawfully arrested. in the Nolasco case. judge is hereby declared null and void and accordingly set aside. there is still the question of the sufficiency of their depositions. Earlier that day. Nolasco v. they were also certain as to the expected date and time of arrival of the accused from China via Hongkong. to establish the applicant's claims. 145 SCRA 687 (1986) F: The challenged SW was issued by the resp. papers and other records of the CPP. Cruz Pano. If. having been arrested already.-.m. by their own personal info. the seizure of documents could not be justified as an incident of an arrest. Sec. His application. of which appellant was touted to be amember. having been wanted as high officers of the CPP. Aside from this. The petitioner's house was searched 2 days later but none of the articles listed in the warrant was discovered. At noon of the same day. to hold liable for perjury the person giving it if it will be found later that his declarations are false. Gonzales. the search would no longer be justified since there is no way for Roque to go back to the apartment and destroy the documents. The officers conducting the search found 1 colt Magnum revolver & 18 live bullets w/c they confiscated. judge in accordance w/ Rule 126. VV. The SC at first held that the search was valid even if the warrant issued was void for failing to describe with particularity the things to be seized. xxx". (b) When search is an an incident to a valid arrest. "the application was not yet subscribed and sworn to. personally known to him. 147 SCRA 509 (1987) Previous ruling reconsidered F: Petitioners moved for a reconsideration of the decision. It was. Milagros Roque and Cynthia Nolasco were arrested at the intersection of Mayon and Margal Streets in QC at 11:30 a. Quillosa on the contents of his affidavit only "to ascertain among others. Roque's apartment located 2 blocks away. if he knew and understood the same. On the basis of the documents seized. They are now the bases of the charge against the petitioner. Milagrso had been wanted as a high ranking officer of the CPP. 4 of the ROC. Suzette. By his own accounts." shows that they were in the main a mere . It is a general rule that. 12.

It is basic that searches and seizure may be done only through a judicial warrant . or how far he was from the window. Motive is immaterial in mala prohibita. in the full view of the witnesses. because speech is speech. we take cognizance of this petition in view of the seriousness and urgency of the consitutional issues raised. The Sol-Gen argues that under Sec. court found the accused guilty of the crime charged. in this case. otherwise. a political case. Art. Hence. St. he could be lawfully arrested and searhed. They approached the petitioner and identified themselves as members of the INP. The judge must determine WON the same are indeed "obscene": the question is to be resolved on a case-to-case basis and on the judge's sound discretion. judge to ask how the witness could be so certain even as to the caliber of the guns.. Petitioner attempted to flee but was stopped by the 2. they did not know that he had committed. The probable cause is that when the petitioner acted suspiciously and . or when an offense has in fact. the main thrust of w/c is that there being no lawful arrest or search and seizure. and (3) the seizure of evidence in plain view. foremost of w/c is the 'stop & search' w/o a SW at military or police checkpoints. newsstand owners and peddlers along Manila sidewalks. Suzette. 188 SCRA 288 (1990) F: Patrolmans Ungab and Umpar. filed a motion to quash the search warrant by the resp. A search and seizure without a warrant is allowed in buy-bust operations. We do not agree.-. These would have been judicious questions but they were injudiciously omitted. distributors. two Metro Manila Dailies. the items w/c were confiscated from the possession of the petitioner are inadmissible in evidence against him. Motion to Quash. A SW is still necessary. Petitioner was brought to the police station for further investigation. "this procedural flaw notwithstanding." RAM. or was actually committing. SOL-GEN ARGUES THAT THE PETITIONER WAIVED WHATEVER DEFECT WHEN THE PETITIONER VOLUNTARILY SUBMITTED TO THE SEARCH AND MANIFESTED HIS CONFORMITY IN WRITING. considering that these acts were against the law. At the time the peace officers identified themselves and apprehended the petitioner as he attempted to flee. The authorities must apply for the issuance of the a search warrant from the judge . judge. there are many instances where a warrant & seizure can be effected w/o necessarily being preceded by an arrest. Instead. valid or invalid. dispatch in transit or transport 3. R 136 of ROC. a decision was rendered finding petitioner guilty. w/ 2 rounds of live ammunition for a . the declaration of the witnesses were readily accepted and the warrant sought was issued forthwith. R 113. Though he pleaded not guilty. There is a greater reason in this case to reprobate the questioned raid. The said circumstances did not justify an arrest w/o a warrant. & he has personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person arrested has committed it. the SC countermanded the orders of the RTC authorizing the serach of the premises WE Forum and Metropolitan Mail. Asio. it was effected on the basis of a probable cause. But as we said and did in Burgos. 12. de Villa. The fact that the instant case involves an obscenity rap makes it no different from Burgos. among others.22 cal. an offense is malum prohibitum. deliver. the latter is more reasonable considering that. Suzette. Issue: W/N the search and seizure was illegal HELD: YES.500 grams of dried marijuana to A2FC Cartel during a buy-bust operation. or whether it was on the first floor or second floor. However. gun. or if the acts related were really done openly. What we see here is pressure exerted by the military authorities. they are prohibited. just been committed. The CA affirmed the appealed decision in toto. Malum Prohibitum. & 2 live ammunition for a .38 Smith & Wesson revolver.-.restatement of their allegations in their affidavits. 177 SCRA 250 (1989) F: Adio was charged with violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 for having attempted to sell. the subject thereof is necessarily illegal per se. Among the publications seized and later burned was "Pinoy Playboy" magazines published and co-edited by plaintiff Leo Pita. Hence. (2) a search of a moving vehicle. if in their opinion. indeed. In Burgos v Chief of Staff (133 SCRA 800) . or is attempting to commit an offense. the petition for review. 178 SCRA 362 (1989) F: Pursuant to the Anti-Smut Campaign of Mayor Ramon Bagatsng.38 cal. magazines. an obscenity rap is in order. was caught red-handed while pushing marijuana. CA. gun. After his injunctive relief was dismissed by the RTC and his appeal rejected by CA. 2. who practically coerced the petitioner to sign the supposed waiver as guaranty against a possible challenge later to the validity of the search they were conducting. were conducting a surveillance along Magallanes. ROC. (d) Stop and Frisk Posadas v. and indecent and later burned the seized materials in public. is actually committing. it is clear that an arrest w/o a warrant may be effected by a peace officer or private person. a warrantless search and seizure (S & S) conducted at military or police checkpoints and the search thereof in the case at bar. They must convince the court that the materials sought to be seized are "obscene" and pose a clear and present danger of an evil substantive enough to warrant State interference and action. a smoke grenade. They just suspected that he was hiding something in the buri bag. He was prosecuted for illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions in the RTC of Davao City wherein after a plea of not guilty. Issue: W/N the marijuana leaves were obtained in violation of Sec. when in his presence the person to be arrested has committed. Davao City. a search warrant will issue. While they were w/in the premises of the Rizal Memorial Colleges. judge. invoking the guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizure. the constitutionality of w/c has been upheld by this Court in Valmonte v. before coming to the SC. both members of the INP of the Davao Metrodiscom assigned w/ the Intelligence Task Force. in the complete absence of a warrant.Petitioner should have. pornographic. he seeks review with SC. except that they were made in the form of answers to the questions put to them by the resp. publications and other reading materials believed to be obscene. there is no question that. the offense. CA. Pita v. or why his presence was not noticed at all. unlike in the former. the circumstances being among those which can be considered exceptional. by reason of a defective warrant.It does not follow that bec. policemen seized and confiscated from dealers. they spotted petitioner carrying a "buri" bag & they noticed him to be acting suspiciously. The accused. There are recognized exceptions to the rule among them (1) a search incidental to an arrest. w/o a SW. They then checked the "buri" bag of the petitioner where they found 1 caliber . People v. 5. If probable cause exist. they become unreasonable and subject to challenge. As bet. III of the 1987 Constitution HEKD: NO The rule that a search and seizure must be supported by a valid warrant is not an absolute one. but the subjects of this kind of offense may not be summarily seized simply bec. a person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything (w/c may be) used as proof of a commission of an offense. and trial on the merits. HELD: From Sec. One may well wonder why it did not occur to the resp. whether political or "obscene". They did not know what its contents were.

accused was apprised of his constitutional rights to remain silent and to have the assistance of counsel. He tried to escape by running inside his house. The policemen were not only authorized but were also under obligation to apprehend the drug pusher even without a warrant. It is primarily and solely engaged in the sale of automobiles.attempted to flee w/ the buri bag. the raiding team had no opportunity to apply for and secure a search warrant from the courts. the building and houses therein were deserted. During the investigation. 233 SCRA 716 (July 6. for that matter." In such a situation. Presidential Decree No. a buy-bust operation was conducted by the police. 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. When the military operatives raided the place. and for attempted homicide. De Gracia was seen inside the office of Col. The waiver must be expressly made. had reasonable ground to believe that a crime was being committed. there was general chaos and disorder at that time because of simultaneous and intense firing within the vicinity of the office and in the nearby Camp Aguinaldo which was under attack by rebel forces. Under such urgency and exigency of the moment. futile and much too late. Appellant was convicted for illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of rebellion. Members of the team were engaged by rebels in gunfire killing one member of the team. written in Tagalog. the occupants thereof refused to open the door despite requests for them to do so. Furthermore. There are two separate statutes penalizing different offenses with discrete penalties. it is reasonable for an officer rather than simply to shrug his shoulder and allow a crime to occur. The courts in the surrounding areas were obviously closed and. No search warrant was secured by the raiding team. (The rejection of these evidence would not affect the conviction of the accused in view of the abundance of other evidence establishing his guilt. Matillano. They were then made to sign an inventory. He tried to retrieve the two foils but he was prevented from doing so. The arrest that followed the hot-pursuit was valid. The Revised Penal Code treats rebellion as a crime apart from murder. de Gracia. The Eurocar Sales Office is obviously not a gun store and it is definitely not an armory or arsenal which are the usual depositories for explosives and ammunition. The police pursued him and were able to subdue him. (not in VV's revised outline) (e) When there is a valid express waiver made voluntarily and intelligently. Accused-appellant Rolando de Gracia was charged in two separate informations for illegal possession of ammunition and explosives in furtherance of rebellion.. 1989. The policemen’s entry into the house of the accused without a search warrant was in hot-pursuit of a person caught committing an offense in flagrante. In the first place. When appellant was asked to give a written statement. as a consequence of which. A searching team raided the Eurocar Sales Office. A contemporaneous search may be conducted upon the person of the arrestee and the immediate vicinity where the arrest was made. together with the accused. proceeded to WPD headquarters for investigation. 1866 defines and punishes. Accused was found guilty of illegal possession of firearms. Accused contends that his arrest and the seizure of the bag containing prohibited drugs was null and void. There was no showing that accused was then assisted by counsel nor his waiver thereto put into writing. accused was arrested. RULING: YES. As the Sol-Gen said: "The assailed S & S may still be justified as akin to a 'stop and frisk' situation whose object is either to determine the identity of suspicious individuals or to maintain the status quo momentarily while the police officers seeks to obtain more info. The US SC held in Terry v. BARLONGAY CASE: People v. or other offenses. There was consequently more than sufficient probable cause to warrant their action. RULING: NO. it is our considered opinion that the instant case falls under one of the exceptions to the prohibition against a warrantless search. Under the foregoing circumstances. and the Booking and Information Sheet. De lara F: After a surveillance conducted. he refused to do so pending arrival of his lawyer. and "molotov" bombs inside one of the rooms belonging to a certain Col. thereby compelling the former to break into the office. as a specific . That judgment of conviction is now challenged before us in this appeal. He even showed the arresting officers a blue plastic bag containing prohibited drugs. . the military operatives. Ruling: YES It is admitted that the military operatives who raided the Eurocar Sales Office were not armed with a search warrant at that time. five bundles of C-4 dynamites.) Bam. for it many happen that he did so only out of respect for the authorities. Waiver cannot be implied from the fact that the person consented or did not object to the search." PETITION DENIED. The raid was actually precipitated by intelligence reports that said office was being used as headquarters by the RAM. taking into account the facts obtaining in this case. where he was forced to sign the photocopy of the marked money. to stop a suspicious individual briefly in order to determine his identity or maintaing the status quo while obtaining more info. the Receipt of Property Seized. People v. The accused was caught in flagrante as a result of a buy-bust operation. a search warrant could lawfully be dispensed with. but was acquitted of attempted homicide. Prior to the raid. Mshells of different calibers. The seizure of the plastic bag was the result of the accused’s arrest inside the house. In addition. The team. There was no need for a warrant. ISSUE: Whether or not the arrest of the accused and the seizure of the plastic bag were valid. homicide. under the situation then prevailing. 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 SW for the purpose. Matillano. He also contends that he was not assisted by counsel during custodial investigation. The presence of an unusual quantity of high-powered firearms and explosives could not be justifiably or even colorably explained. Such an exercise may prove to be useless. Issue: Whether or not there was a valid search and seizure in this case. holding a C-4 and suspiciously peeping through a door. The accused admitted that he kept prohibited drugs in his house. ISSUE: Whether the documents signed by the accused during the investigation were admissible in evidence. there was a surveillance conducted on the premises wherein the surveillance team was fired at by a group of men coming from the Eurocar building. arson. Surveillance was undertaken by the military along EDSA because of intelligence reports about a coup. The team arrested appellant. of the explosives and ammunition confiscated by the raiding team. RAM. The accused already pocketed the marked money and handed two foils to the police when he sensed the presence of police operatives. Ohio that "a police officer may in appropriate circumstances & in an appropriate manner approach a person for the purpose of investigating possible criminal behaviour even though there is no probable cause to make an arrest.. such as illegal possession of firearms. that might conceivably be committed in the course of a rebellion. They were able to find and confiscate six cartons of M-16 ammunition. 1994) F: The incidents involved in this case took place at the height of the coup d'etat staged in December.

for the purpose of establishing an effective territorial defense. A blanket prohibition such as that sought by the petitioners would limit all police actions to one on one confrontation where search warrants and warrants of arrest against specific individuals are easily procured. The remedy is not an original action for prohibition brought through a TP's suit. or 3. however. 24 with variant elements. In the absence of clear facts ascertained through an orderly procedure. considering that their cars and vehicles are being subjected to regular searches and check-ups. the problem is not initially for the SC. This is so inspite of the alleged pleas of barangay officials for the thousands of residents"to submit themselves voluntarily for character and personal verification. when conducted w/in reasonable limits. 170 SCRA 256 (1989) F: On 1/20/87. second. cite Art. The 41 petitioners state that they are all of legal age. Double jeopardy in this case cannot be invoked because the first is an offense punished by a special law while the second is a felony punished by the Revised Penal Code. illegal. the former should prevail. A show of force is sometimes necesary as long as the rights of the people are protected and not violated. have legal authority to conduct saturation drives. economic and political dev't of the NCR. the crime of illegal possession of firearms committed in the course or as part of a rebellion. 4200 I. Resps. or however otherwise described. the remedy is not to stop all police actions. unlawful possession of an unlicensed firearm in furtherance of rebellion may give rise to separate prosecutions for a violation of Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. Further investigation of the petitioners' charges and a hard look by admin. bureaus and offices. It is basically one for the executive departments and for the trial courts. Those w/c are reasonable are not forbidden. of the institution of said checkpoints. But. 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.offense. the resps. the imposition of the death penalty was proscribed by the Constitution. xxx HELD: The Court believes it is highly probable that some violations were actually committed. Checkpoints may not also be regarded as measures to thwart plots to destabilize the govt. and other alleged acts w/c are shocking to the conscience. Where not one victim complains. to the petitioners. True. maintaining peace and order. Wire Tapping Republic Act No. officials at the policy implications of the prayed for blanket prohibition are also warranted. Consequently. to record such private communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as dictaphone or dictagraph or detectaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder." They also cite sec. and in the face of a prima facie showing that some abuses were probably committed and could be committed during future police actions. the Valenzuela residents are worried of being harassed and of their sarety being placed at the arbitrary. Respondents stress 2 points. 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. indeed. are part of the price we pay for an orderly society and a peaceful community. 4. he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence. and providing an atmosphere conducive to the social. especially at night or at dawn. Under the circumstances of this TP's suit. First. shall be the Commander-in-chief of all AFP and whenever it becomes necessary. are total lies. . RAM. 1] 1. RAM. without authority from all the parties to the private communication or spoken word. and not one violator is properly charged. 181 SCRA 623 (1990) F: This is a petition for prohibition w/ prel.:"The Pres. including the essential and legitimate ones. capricious and whimsical disposition of the military manning the checkpoints. UNLAWFUL ACTS A. He shall ensure that the laws are faithfully executed. the NCRDC installed checkpoints in various parts of Valenzuela and MM. to prohibit the military and police officers represented by public respondents from conducting "areal target zonings" or "saturation drives" in MM. the checkpoints during these abnormal times. appellant De Gracia could only be sentenced to serve the penalty of reclusion perpetua which was correctly meted out by the trial court. 1866. bona fide residents of MM and Taxpayers and leaders in their respective communities. to secretly overhear or intercept such communication or spoken word by using any other device or arrangment. reasonably conducted. was gaunned down allegedly in cold blood by members of the NCRDC for ignoring and/ or continuing to speed off inspite of warning shots fired in the air. Petitioners claim that the saturation drives follow a common pattern of human rights abuses. w/o a SW and/ or court order. Sec. Accdg. and also a violation of Articles 134 and 135 of the Revised Penal Code on rebellion. 3. Any person who. Anarchy may reign if the military and the police decide to sit down in their offices bec." However. Guazon v. De Villa. Subject to the presence of the requisite elements in each case. Not all searches and seizures are prohibited. at the cost of occasional inconveninece. 1. no permanent relief can be given at this time. invasion or rebellion. inj. to tap any wire or cable. or threatened to be infringed. Glynda. The constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right invocable only by those whose rights have been infringed. albeit with an erroneous recommendation in connection therewith. does any of the following acts: [Sec. par." Valmonte v.:"The Pres. the military. all concerted drives where a show of force is present are totally prohibited. 1866 imposes the death penalty where the illegal possession of firearms and ammunition is committed in furtherance of rebellion. 17 of the Const. 18. the "areal target zonings" or "saturation drives" are in critical areas pinpointed by the military and police as places where the subversives are hiding. Police cannot respond to riots or violent demonstration if they do not move in sufficient numbers. Presidential Decree No. the kicking in of doors. Their alleged fear for their safety increased when Benjamin Parpon. At the time the offense charged in this case was committed under the governance of that law. No proof has been presented before the Court to show that. we have to temporarily restrain the alleged baning on walls. As part of its duty to maitain peace and order. Petitioners aver that. the manning of checkpoints by the military is susceptible of abuse by the military in the same manner that all governmental power is susceptible of abuse. the NCRDC was activated w/ the mission of conducting security operations w/in its area or responsibility and peripheral areas. there is no erring soldier or policeman whom we can order prosecuted. they allege that the accusations of the petitioners about a deliberate disregard for human rights. bec. in the interest of public security. De Villa. in the course of their routine checks. VII. shall have control of all the executive departments. the violation of residences even if these are humble shanties of squatters. the herding of half-naked men to assembly areas for examination of tattoo marks. Constitutionality of checkpoints and "areal target zonings. or 2. In the meantime. We see nothing wrong in police making their presence visibly felt in troubled areas. committed specific violations of petitioners' rights against unlawful search and seizure of other rights. 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 benfit of the public. And. discomfort and even irritation to the citizen.

purport. to replay the same for any other person or persons. punishing espionage and other offenses against national security The WRITTEN ORDER shall only be issued or granted upon written application with the examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce and must show: a) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes enumerated herein has been committed or is being committed provided. he shall be subject to deportation proceedings.B. the identity of the person or persons whose communications. shall. in the case of telegraphic or telephonic communications. any of such crimes. conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion. shall not be opened. criminal investigation or trial of offenses mentioned below: [Secs. intercept. if the offender is an alien. the number of tapes. unless extended or renewed by the court upon being satisfied that such extension or renewal is in the public interest. b) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence may be obtained essential to the conviction of any person for. inciting to rebellion. conspiracy to commit sedition 11. sedition 10. with due notice and opportunity to be heard to the person or persons whose conversations or communications have been recorded. imprisonment for not less than 6 months or more than 6 years. or to the prevention of. Gaanan listened to the telephone conversation without complainant's consent. kidnapping as defined by the RPC 13. or to the solution of. record. substance. conspiracy to commit sedition. par. wire. par. such authority shall be granted only upon prior proof that a rebellion or acts of sedition. piracy 5. 145 SCRA 112 (1986) F: Complainant Atty. par. or spoken words are to be overheard. which shall not be granted except upon motion. of any communication or spoken word secured either before or after the effective date of this Act in the manner prohibited by law. be punished by: A. to furnish transcriptions thereof. ISSUE: W/N an extension telephone is among the prohibited devices in Sec. c) that there are no other means readily available for obtaining such evidence. Any person who shall aid. or used in evidence or their contents revealed. 3. inciting to sedition 12. PENALTY Any person who violates the provisions of this Act. whether complete or partial. conversations. the dates and times covered by each recording. HELD: NO . conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion 8. rebellion 7. permits. provoking war and disloyalty in case of war 4. III. obtained or secured by any person in violation of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial. or recorded and. except upon order of the court. with the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification from public office if the offender be a public official at the time of the commission of the offense. effect or meaning of the same or any part thereof. discussions. ADMISSIBILITY Any communication or spoken word. 1] 1. permit. Pintor and Montebon offered to withdraw the complaint for direct assault they filed against Laconico after demanding P8. intercepted. disc record or any other such record. treason 2. either verbally or in writing. discussions. C. and 4. shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the peace officer granted such authority stating the number of recordings made. 2] D. who is authorized by the written order of the Court (RTC within whose territorial jurisdiction the acts for which auhtority is applied for are to be executed). Contents: 1. 1 of RA 4200 such that iuts use to overhear a private conversation would constitute an unlawful interception of communication between 2 parties using a telephone line. 2] 1. conversations. This demand was heard by Atty. Any peace officer. inciting rebellion 9. or copies thereof. the offense or offenses sought to be committed or prevented. as the case may be. complainant charged Gaanan and Laconico with violation of the Anti. or record the communications. IV. the telegraph line and the telephone number involved and its location. mutiny in the high seas 6. or aids. violations of CA 616. to any other person. and B. Any person. 2] II. or 3. or 4. sedition. knowingly posseses any tape record. discs. Procedure: All recordings made under court authorization within 48 hours after the expiration of the period fixed in the order: 1. or cause to be done any of the acts declared to be unlawful: [Sec. or the existence contents. 3. or the recordings replayed. or causes such violation: [Sec.000 from him. upon conviction. or 2. 2. 1. espionage 3. Gaanan through a telephone extension as requested by Laconico so as to personally hear the proposed conditions for the settlement. or spoken words. and C. IAC. B or the exempted acts below or of an order issued thereunder. who: [Sec. have actually been or are being committed. whether participant or not in the above penalized acts. Shirley Alinea Notes. to communicate the contents thereof. Gaanan v. 3. Pintor was subsequently arrested in an entrapment operation upon receipt of the money. or any information therein contained. Effectivity: The authorization shall be effective for the period specified in the order which shall not exceed 60 days from the date of issuance of the order. the identity of the peace officer authorized to overhear.Wiretapping Act (RA 4200). 1. the period of the authorization. to execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful in cases involving the crimes of: [Sec. Use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil. shall be deposited with the court in a sealed envelope or sealed package. 2] B. Atty. that in cases involving the offenses of rebellion. Any person who shall violate the provisions of Sec. quasi-judicial. EXEMPTED ACTS A. Since Atty. 2. or records included in the deposit and certifying that no duplicates or copies are included in the envelope or package deposited with the court. or administrative hearing or investigation.

mandamus & injunction.An extension tel. or committed specific omissions. rules that evidence illegally obtained is not necessarily excluded if is otherwise admissible under the rules of evidence. (2) No. The averments thereof w/ respect to the offense committed were abstract. It was in Stonehill v.S.A search warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of the following personal property: (a) Subject matter of the offense. III. RAM.that the things to be seized be particularly described-. A perusal of the Senate Congressional Record shows that our lawmakers intended to discourage. & (b) that the warrant shall particularly describe the things to be seized. blackmail or gain some unwarranted advantage over the tel.S. and only its suppression can be asked for. prohibition. civil or administrative liability of the officer who illegally seized it. III. It the thing is contraband. supra. and (c) Used or intended to be used as a means of committing an offense. 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 avalied of by 3rd parties. extension in this case was not installed for that purpose. Consequently. What may be seized Rule 126. the SC noting that the total suppression of the thing seized is the only effective means of ensuring the constitutional right which it seeks to preserve. said corporations have their respective personalities. papers and things may be used in evidence against petitioners. 7. or recording a tel. In such case. The tel. judges) issued a total of 42 search warrants against petitioners &/ or the corporations of w/c they were officers. (Rules of Court. 1 of the law as the use thereof cannot be considered as "tapping" the wire or cable of a telephone line. the SC. General search warrants are outlawed bec. to search the perons named and/ or the premises of their offices. as the "subject of the offense. The victim may or may not get back the thing seized. Two points must be stressed in connection w/ Art. Suzette. It just happened to be there for ordinary office use. it would not be returned. HELD: (1) No.as well as tending to defeat its major objective: the elimination of general warrants. In other words. resistance). Ver. action for certiorari. and to seize several personal prop. by their very nature. users. persons suchj as government authorities or representatives of organized groups from installing devices in order to gather evidence for use in court or to intimidate. 3. But if the thing is legal. The writ was partially lifted or dissolved. w/n the search warrants in question and the searches and seizures made under the authority thereof are valid. Petitioners have no cause of action to assail the legality of the contested warrants and the seizure made in pursuance thereof bec. or other devices enumerated in Sec. intercepting. and/ or residences. and things seized from the officers of the corporations. Sec. In Aberca v." Alleging that the aforementioned search warrants are null & void. cannot be placed in the same category as a dictaphone. NIRC and the RPC. even if no criminal prosecution has yet been filed. as in the Stonehill case. The Court noted. the SC held that even if the privilege of the writ is suspended. Personal property to be seized. Sec. several judges (resp. when the exclusionary rule was first adopted in the Philippines. (3) If the answer in no. dictagraph. it is a general rule that penal statutes must be construed strictly in favor of the accused." or "used or intended to be used as the means of committing the offense" as violation of CB Laws. for the same presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the party against whom it is sought has performed particular acts. directed to any peace officer. stolen or embezelled or the fruits of the offense. action for damages. Thus in the case of doubt as in this case. separate and distinct from the personality of petitioners. One of the remedies of one who was victimized by an illegal search is to ask for the suppression of the things seized and the evidence illegally taken. the evidence admitted. 5.g. especially in the Philippines where violations were committed by those in power and were thus equipped with the pardoning power to water down the gravity of the other penalties imposed to violators of those constitutional rights. the court can nevertheless entertain an action not only against the task force but even against the . the insufficiency of the other remedies (e. No specific offense had been alleged in said applications. Tariff and Customs Laws (TCC). ISSUES: (1) With respect to those found & seized in the offices of the corporations. 2.) 6. they are not of common usage and their purpose is precisely for tapping. TCC. prosecutors). As a consequence. the admissibility of the evidence is not effected by the illegality of the means by which it was acquired. In Moncado v. (2) In connection w/ those found & seized in the residences of petitioners. documents. It was stated that the natural and juridical persons has committed a violation of CB laws. caprice or passion of peace officers. III for "any purpose" and in "any proceeding". following the U. This has not always been the case. The evidence is absolutely useless. People's Court (1948). The warrants sanctioned the seizure of all records of the petitioners and the aforementioned corporations. xxx (2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this (privacy of communication and correspondence) or the preceding section (unreasonable searches and seizures) shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. Diokno. 2 and 3 (1) of Art. conversation. NIRC & RPC. The exclusionary rule prohibits the use of any evidence obtained in violation of secs. (b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds or fruits of the offense. it was impossible for the judges who issued the warrants to have found the existence of a probable cause. Exclusionary Rule Art. 20 SCRA 383 (1967) F: Upon application of the officers of the govt (resp. Ohio 1969. through punishment. without prejudice to any criminal. Civil Action for Damages A civil case for damages can also be filed pursuant to Article 32 of the Civil Code. on WON an extension tel. they place the sanctity of the domicile and the privacy of communication and correspondence at the mercy of the whims. the party can ask for its return. the mere act of listening . w/n petitioners have cause of action to assail the validity of the contested warrants. said petitioners filed w/ the SC this orig. thus openly contravening the explicit command of our Bill of Rights-. This section refers to instruments whose installation or presence cannot be presumed by the party or parties being overheard because. case of Wolf V. case of Maop v. depending on whether it is contraband or not. insofar as the papers. Colorado. is included in the phrase "device or arrangement" the penal statute must be construed as not including an extension tel. 2 is no. Stonehill v. but the injunction was maintained as regards those found & seized in the residences of petitioners. following the U. Diokno. sec. violating a given provision of our criminal laws. Furthermore. w/n said documents. None of these requirements has been complied w/. whatever their nature. criminal punishment. in order to be punishable must stricly be with the use of the enumerated devices in RA 4200 or others of similar nature. warehouses.-. 2 of the Consti: (a) that no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause to be determined by the judge in the manner set forth therein.

the liberties guaranteed by the Consti. The TFM raided some places using defective warrants. is involved. First. Job Reyes reported the incident to the NBI and requested a laboratory examination of the samples he extracted from the cellophane wrapper. Second. the judge may rely simply on fiscal's certification as to probable cause Compare Rule 112. Querubin. he squeezed one of the bundles allegedly containing gloves and felt dried leaves inside.) The constitutional proscription against unlawful S & S therefore applies as a restraint directed only against the govt and its agencies tasked w/ the enforcement of the law. Abbas. Chuoco Tiaco. 9. 160 SCRA 590 (1988) Suspension of privilege of Habeas Corpus not a bar to a damage suit F: Petitioners brought suit alleging that General Fabian Ver had ordered the Task Force Makabansa of the AFP to conduct "preemptive strikes against known communist terrorists' underground houses" in Metro Manila. Job Reyes. they seized personal belongings of petitioners. ISSUE: May an act of a private individual. from interference by govt. Reyes as a precautionary measure bef. who made the search/ inspection. It turned out that the dried leaves were marijuana flowering tops as certified by the forensic chemist of the Narcotics Section of the NBI. 6 (on warrants of arrest) with Rule 126. The judge can issue the warrant on the basis of the information filed by the fiscal and the certification of probable cause. 16 Phil. he pulled out a cellophane wrapper protruding from the opening of one of the gloves.-. RAM. 4 (on search warrants. Mr. record. is not meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals finds support in the deliberations of the Con Com. between a private individual and other individuals. opened the boxes for final inspection. cannot be invoked against the State. 98 Phil. 40 Phil. xxx" (Sponsorship speech of Commissioner Bernas. one can indirectly inquire into the validity of the suspension of the privilege. Sec. that a probable cause exists and that there is a necessity of placing the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. In the issuance of warrants of ARREST. following standard operating procedure. he shall issue a warrant of arrest.Upon the filing of an information. Sec. whether citizen or alien. Opening one of the bundles. would like this Court to believe that NBI agents made an illegal search and seizure of the evidence later on used in prosecuting the case. Job Reyes (proprietor) & husband of Anita Reyes. 4. in writing and under oath the complainant and any witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them and attach to the records their sworn statements together with any affidavits submitted.: " xxx The Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the state.(a) By the Regional Trial Court. 534 (1910) Forbes v. delivery of packages to the Bureau of Customs or Bureau of Posts. Thereafter.If the municipal trial judge conducting the preliminary investigation is satisfied after an examination in writing and under oath of the complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and answers. Records of the case clearly indicate that it was Mr. When he opened appellant's box. to recover damages for the illegal searches and seizures made in a despotic manner. APPELANT CONTENDS that the evidence subject of the imputed offense had been obtained in violation of his consti. 6. VV. they had been interrogated in violation of their right to silence and to counsel. Search and Seizure by Private Persons People v. In sum. acting in a private capacity and w/o the intervention and participation of state authorities. Such inspection was reasonable and a SOP on the part of Mr. where no trespass has been committed in aid thereof. Aberca v. however. a peculiar order emitted therefrom. the right against unreasonable S & S cannot be invoked for only the act of private individuals. In the absence of governmental interference. personally examine in the form of searching questions and answers. (Rules of Court. By so doing. Petitioners asked for payment of damages for violations of their constitutional rights. Examination of complainant. HELD: The suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus does not destroy petitioners' right and cause of action for damages for illegal arrest and detention. It the search is made at the behest or inititiation of the proprietor of a private establishment for its own and private purposes.The judge must. noting that it has been practice long settled and that a judge can issue an order to arrest on the basis of the certificate. the mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert the reasonable search effected by Reyes into a warrantless S & S proscribed by the Consti. rights against unreasonable searches and seizures and privacy of communication and therefore argues that the same should be held inadmissible in evidence. as distinguished from SEARCH warrants. not law enforcers.-. The arguments of appellant stands to fall on its own weight. the factual considerations of the case at bar readily foreclose the proposition that NBI agents conducted an illegal S & S of the prohibited merchandise. the Court sees no cogent reason why the same should not be admitted against him. the protection against unreasonable S & S cannot be extended to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring it w/in the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the govt. and w/o the intervention of police authorities. Ver.) The contraband in the case at bar having come into possession of the govt w/o the latter transgressing appellant's rights against unreasonable searches and seizures (S & S). the proprietor of the forwarding agency. Sec.-. Having observed that w/c is open.-. 1122 (1913) 8. they had been tortured and intimidated. before issuing the warrant. The requirement in the case of warrants of arrest is relaxed in that the judge can rely on the certification of the fiscal that the latter has conducted the preliminary investigation and has found probable cause on the part of the accused. Appellant. as in the case at bar. the Regional Trial Court may issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused. Forbes v. His curiosity aroused. xxx (Villanueva v. That the Bill of Rights embodied in the Consti. The SC has allowed this practice in Amarga v. Thus. is not search. . This constitutional right refers to the immunity of one's person.) Rule 126. Chuoco Tiaco. When warrant of arrest may issue. an information was filed against appellant for violation of RA 6425. Marti. Merely to observe and look at that w/c is plain sight is not search. be invoked against the state? HELD: We hold in the negative. allegedly in violation of appellant's constitutional rights. (b) By the Municipal Trial Court. it could only be invoked against the State to whom the restraint against arbitrary and unreasonable exercise of power is imposed. The case at bar assumes a peculiar character since the evidence sought to be excluded was primarily discovered and obtained by a private person. 193 SCRA 57 (1991) F: Before delivery of appellant's box to the Bureau of Customs and/ or Bureau of Posts. Affirmed.) Rule 112. Its concern is not the relation between individuals. Sec. He made an opening on one of the cellophane wrappers and took several grams of the contents thereof.top ranking officials who ordered the seizure. or the lack of it. 739 (1956).

he did not believe that Arangale should be arrested. he shall: (1) personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and. What the Consti. Samulde transmitted the records of the case to Provincial Fiscal Salvani with his finding that “there is prima facie evidence of robbery as charged in the complaint”. 2) and the deletion of the grant of authority by the 1973 Consti. but merely discretionary. Samulde v. Fiscal Salvani returned the records to Judge Samulde on the ground that the transmittal of the records was “premature” because Judge Samulde failed to include the warrant of arrest (WA) against the accused. Salvani. Sec. It is not obligatory. Amarga v. This is not an accurate interpretation. Judge Samulde was ordered to issue a WA in accordance with Sec. have filed an information immediately so that the RTC may issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused. Samulde transmitted the records of the case to Provincial Fiscal Salvani with his finding that “there is prima facie evidence of robbery as charged in the complaint”.perhaps the first Commander-in-Chief of the AFP to have to do so. 5. on the basis thereof. after conducting a PI. on the basis of the affidavits. Judge Samulde sent the records back to Fiscal Salvani stating that although he found that a probable cause existed. or (2) if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause.Of course. Judge Samulde sent the records back to Fiscal Salvani stating that although he found that a probable cause existed. RTC dismissed the petition on the ground that the fiscal had not shown that he has a clear. who were publisher and columnist of the Philippine Star. Fiscal Salvani filed a mandamus case against Judge Samulde to compel him to issue a WA. In satisfying himself of the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest." Instead of submitting his counter-affidavit. Abbas. Under Rule 112 of the 1985 ROC. 5. To determine whether a WA should issue. if the judge is in doubt. HELD: THE PURPOSE OF A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE THE ISSUANCE OF A WA BY THE INVESTIGATING JUDGE OR OFFICER. Makasiar. Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules of Court. the investigating judge must have examined in writing and under oath the complainant and his wirtnesses by searching questions and answers. Beltran moved to dismiss the complaint. a PI is conducted on the basis of affidavits to determine whether or not there is sufficient ground to hold the accused for trial. for the determination of whether it is necessary to arrest the accused in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. of the Phils. Sound policy dictates this procedure. issue a warrant of arrest. he did not believe that Arangale should be arrested. Beltran v. The petitioners filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition. Following established doctrine and procedure. HELD: The addition of the word "personally" after the word "determined" (Art. that there exists prima facie evidence that the accused commited the crime charged." has apparently convinced petitioner Beltran that the Consti. Judge Samulde was ordered to issue a WA in accordance with Sec. is left to his sound judgment or discretion. during the Aug. 12. while the firing was going on-. he can always ask the fiscal to submit the records of the preliminary investigation. legal right to the performance of the act to be required of the judge and that the latter had an imperative duty to perform it. he must be satisfied that a probable cause exists. a PI is conducted on the basis of affidavits to determine whether or not there is sufficient ground to hold the accused for trial. hid under her bed. 165 SCRA 734 (1988) F: Municipal Judge Samulde conducted a preliminary investigation (PI) of Arangale upon a complaint for robbery filed by complainant Magbanua. 98 Phil. 739 (1956) F: Municipal Judge Samulde conducted a preliminary investigation (PI) of Arangale upon a complaint for robbery filed by complainant Magbanua. HELD: THE PURPOSE OF A PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE THE ISSUANCE OF A WA BY THE INVESTIGATING JUDGE OR OFFICER. After the PI. legal right to the performance of the act to be required of the judge and that the latter had an imperative duty to perform it. filed a complaint for libel against the petitioners. Fiscal Salvani filed a mandamus case against Judge Samulde to compel him to issue a WA. III. otherwise judges would be unduly laden w/ the preliminary examination and investigation of criminal complaints instead of concentrating on hearing and deciding cases filed before their courts. alleging that Arangale harvested palay from a portion of her land directly adjoining Arangale’s land. 167 SCRA 393 (1988) F: The Pres. Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules of Court. underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. to issue warrants to "other responsible officer as may be authorized by law. The fiscal deniend his motion after finding a prima facie case against the petitioners and filed the case in court w/c thereafter issued warrants of arrest against the petitioners. that there exists prima facie evidence that the accused commited the crime charged. It he is satisfied with the affidavits. Under Rule 112 of the 1985 ROC. Fiscal Salvani returned the records to Judge Samulde on the ground that the transmittal of the records was “premature” because Judge Samulde failed to include the warrant of arrest (WA) against the accused. xxx VV. ISSUE: Whether it is mandatory for the investigating judge to issue a WA of the accused in view of his finding. ISSUE: Whether it is mandatory for the investigating judge to issue a WA of the accused in view of his finding. he need not summon the affiants. there exists probable cause. based on the following statement in Beltran's column of Oct. The fiscal should. the judge is not required to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. upon the investigating judge to issue a WA. To determine . and there must be a need to place the accused under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. the Pres. After the PI. 29 coup attempt. 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. Neverhteless. after conducting a PI. instead. 1987 entitled "The Nervous Officials of the Aquino Administration:" "If you will recall. Bam. RTC dismissed the petition on the ground that the fiscal had not shown that he has a clear. so he could determine for himself if. alleging that Arangale harvested palay from a portion of her land directly adjoining Arangale’s land. Neverhteless. 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.

Bam. or is attempting to commit an offense. when lawful. 231 SCRA 701 F: Alfaro. Strict enforcement of rule People v. is actually committing. in order to justify an arrest w/o a warrant. In cases falling under paragraphs (a) and (b) hereof. without a warrant. (2) Consequently.45 cal. CA. Rodriguez. The appellant was found guilty of the charge and sentenced to 20 years of reclusion temporal. A .38 caliber revolver was found buried under his house. However. The arrest and the consequent search and seizure came at around seven o’clock that evening. 12 (1). They saw a tricycle with 3 persons on board. Thus. or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another. a team of policemen posted themselves about 10 to 15 meters from the house located at 8199 Constancia St. the incidental search and seizure were likewise illegal and the firearm and document are inadmissible in evidence. (c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment of place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending. Sec. he must be satisfied that a probable cause exists. They also saw a male person come out of the said house and approach and talk to the driver of the tricycle. Manlulu and Samson were arrested nineteen hours after the incident. The gun and subversive documents found by the officer and admitted by the former to be his were likewise held inadmissible because the admission violated the Miranda rule. There is no such personal knowledge in this case. Two arresting officers testified that the appellant had readily admitted ownership of the gun and the documents. The fiscal should. Patrolman Perez seized from Manlulu the . or is about to be committed. on May 13. becomes moot in view of the eyewitness account of Manlapaz which the Court found credible.] It is true that 6 days later he executed a confession before the fiscal w/ the assistance of counsel. and the gun and documents were ordered confiscated. 232 SCRA 498 (April 25.” While Pat. as maximum. III. The offense must also be committed in his presence or w/in his view. is being committed. 7. 144 SCRA 1 (1986). Acting on this phone call of desk officer Michael Orbeta. the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the nearest police station or jail. Pistol and Casio wristwatch said to belong to Alfaro. fatal as it may be. It is not obligatory. a driver and 2 passengers. Section. Sec. (3) The prosecution argues that the appellant admitted ownership of the gun and claims that it was he who pointed to the place where the subversive documents were hidden. not some nineteen hours later. stop in front of the house at 8199 Constancia St. a. 5. The killing took place at one o’clock in the morning. Metro Manila and requested that said person be apprehended. People v. for the determination of whether it is necessary to arrest the accused in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. Go v. on charges of illegal possession of firearm in furtherance of subversion. His drinking companions. Obviously. the flaw. Burgos. since there was no personal knowledge of the offense itself. the appellant should be acquitted. and there must be a need to place the accused under immediate custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. Marvin Pajilan received a phone call from the desk officer of Sub-Station I. The rule requires that the arrest immediately follows the commission of the offense. but the gun and the subversive documents must be confiscated. ISSUE: Whether or not the arrest and seizure of the gun and the watch was valid. the arrest made by the constabulary without a warrant of a farmer on the basis of information that he was a subversive was held unconstitutional. 206 SCRA 138 (1992) BARLONGAY CASE: People v. instead. Perez may have personally gathered the information which led to the arrest of Manlulu. Sec. namely. sec. is left to his sound judgment or discretion. Bam. his admission is inadmissible under [Art. 1982. 5 (a).. However. in People v. and it is uncorroborated and unreliable. HELD: The warrantless arrest was invalid. in his presence. upon the investigating judge to issue a WA. 8199 Constancia St. The law requires “personal knowledge”. Rule 113 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that the arresting officer must have “personal knowledge” nor was the offense “in fact just been committed. Michael Orbeta. and he shall be proceeded against in accordance with Rule 112. as minimum. In spite of the nullification of the arrest of accused Manlulu. given by Cesar Masamlok. Paragraph (b) Sec. and the exclusion of real evidence. 1989) F: Pat. but merely discretionary. (Rules of Court. Makati. but it was then already too late. VV.-. (b) When an offense. 144 SCRA 1 (1986) F: On the basis of info. cases where an arrest can be made either by the peace officer or a private person without need of a warrant. without a warrant and without informing Manlulu of his right to counsel. who was also drinking with the accused and the victim. Makati. Manlulu. Hence the arrest of the appellant was illegal. who informed him that a person named 'Alyas Allan' was selling marijuana at No. that is not enough. When arrest may be made without a warrant Rule 113. the appellant was arrested while plowing his farm in Tiguman. the arresting officer must have personal knowledge that the crime has been committed. The key element in the first case is that the offense was committed "in his presence". Subversive documents were also seized from a place near his house. HELD: (1) Under R 113. a NARCOM agent. This instance cannot come within the purview of a valid warrantless arrest. has in fact just been committed. arrest a person: (a) When. 5 talks of "citizen arrests". and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it. to reclusion perpetua. as the appellant was not informed of his constitutional rights at that time. The key element in the second case is that he has "personal knowledge". have filed an information immediately so that the RTC may issue a warrant for the arrest of the accused. (4) As the remaining evidence against the appellant is the testimony of Cesar M. 10.A peace officer or a private person may.. After a while they saw the male person go back to . the investigating judge must have examined in writing and under oath the complainant and his witnesses by searching questions and answers. the person to be arrested has committed. Arrest without warrant.whether a WA should issue. as well as his extra-judicial confession which was taken in violation of the Constitution.) Rule 113. some nineteen hours later. still the prosecution was able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Davao del Sur. “personal gathering of information” is different from personal knowledge. Burgos. 5. was stabbed and shot in a drinking spree. Patrolman Perez arrested Manlulu on the information given by Manlapaz.

the person to be arrested has committed. is actually Rolando Dural. Dural was then transferred to the Regional Medical Services of the CAPCOM. RIOU-CAPCOM received confidential info. (a) and (b) of Rule 113. The appellant contends that the police officers had no personal knowledge that he was indeed handing marijuana to Enrico Bacod as they were 10-15 meters away from the alleged sale transaction. Dural was arrested for being a member of the NPA. is more an act of capturing them in the course of an armed conflict. Dural was referred to the Caloocan City Fiscal who conducted an inquest and thereafter filed w/ the RTC-Caloocan City an info. and that they are. 5. of PD 1866 was filed. a member of the NPA liquidation squad. the issuance of a judicial warrant and the granting of bail if the offense is bailable. need not follow the usual procedure in the prosecution of offenses w/c requires the determination by a judge of the existence of probable cause bef. charging her w/ viol. The male person brought out from his pockets 2 small plastic bags containing suspected marijuana leaves. In the course of the search were found several firearms. They found firearms. The persons in whose behalf these petitions for HC have been filed had freshly committed or were actually committing an offense. of Florida Roque. Agnes Hospital in Roosevelt Ave. Arrest without warrant. When arrested. regular power supply. for viol.. Subversion being a continuing offense. in the act of committing an offense." The petition for HC. the absence of a judicial warrant is no legal impediment to arresting or capturing persons committing overt acts of violence against govt forces. the Constantino house in Marikina Heights was placed under military surveillance and on 8/12/88. case. Obviously. etc. Accordingly. At about 8 PM. responsible for the killing of 2 CAPCOM soldiers the day before. R. Enrile. without a warrant. xxx (Garcia-Padilla v. The exact location where this trading in drugs was taking place was given to them. this Court on behalf of Roque and Buenaobra. speaker and subversive documents. viz. subversive documents. journals. Glynda.C. when apprehended. among others. aka. a marijuana cigarette'. than for the purpose of immediately prosecuting them in court for a statutory offense. since the writ does not lie in favor of an accused in a crim. or is attempting to commit an offense. antennae. the military agents conducted a search in the presence of the occupants of the house and the barangay captain of the place. As to Dural. same day. or when an offense has just been committed and the person making the arrest has personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person arrested has committed it.. "Ka Nelia. ROC. Another info. After identifying themselves as military agents and after seeking permission to search the place.C. In view of the revelations made by Rogelio Ramos. Also found in Buenaobra's possession was a piece of paper containing the jumbled tel. The police officers were tipped off by an informer about the illegal trade of the accused. When confronted. The Court finds that the persons detained have not been illegally arrested nor arbitrarily deprived of their constitutional right to liberty and that the circumstances attending these cases do not warrant their release on HC. he refused to give a written statement. under Sec. pars. Buenaobra arrived at RC's house. of the Anti-Subversion Act was filed against Roque and also to Buenaobra. so that their arrests. Constantino (RC) could not produce any permit or authority to possess the firearms. 5. He was brought to CIS HQ for investigation. An arrest w/o a warrant. the tricycle driver and his 2 passengers to bring out the contents of their pockets. I In Umil v. of the CPP. Ramos. as amended is justified when the person arrested is caught in flagrante delicto. When questioned. The arrest therefore was not valid as the requirements for a warrantless arrest were not complied with. or for committing non-violent acts but in furtherance of rebellion. w/o warrant were clearly justified. Amelia admitted ownership of the documents seized. to quell the rebellion. pursuant to a search warrant . Pat. a search of the house was conducted at 5 PM by CISC-NCD & CSG. he readily submitted to the military agents that he is a regular member of the CPP/ NPA and that he went to the place to deliver letters to "Ka Mong. Upon positive identification by an eyewitness. The arrest. A peace officer or a private person may. ledgers. ammunition. w/c was granted. 187 SCRA 311 (1990) PER CURIAM These are 8 petitions for habeas corpus (HC) filed bef. insofar as Umil & Villanueva are concerned. sister of Amelia Roque. although he admitted that he was a staff member of the executive of the NUFC and a ranking member of the International Dept. about a member of the NPA-Sparrow unit being treated for a gunshot wound at the St. It was found that the wounded person. they further saw the tricycle driver in turn give something to the male person. Exceptions to strict enforcement (1) "Continuous" crimes of subversion Umil v. who has been released on bail. the arrest of Dural w/o warrant is justified as it can be said that he was committing an offense when arrested. the policemen were not only authorized but were also under obligation to apprehend the drug pusher even without a warrant of arrest. The arrest of persons involved in rebellion whether as its fighting armed elements. charging Dural w/ the crime of "Double Murder w/ Assault upon agents of persons in authority. which the male person. the writ of HC is no longer available II The arrest of Amelia Roque and Wilfredo Buenaobra. Thus. Having caught the appellant in flagrante as a result of the buy-bust operation. The attendant circumstances taking place before their eyes led the police officers to reasonably conclude that an offense was actually being committed. a former NPA. At the hearing. However. is actually committing. Issue: Was the warantless arrest valid? Ruling: YES. The tricycle driver brought out from his right front pocket 3 sticks of suspected marijuana cigarettes. the Court. in his presence. vouchers. The warrantless arrest made by the law enforcers was valid since it falls under the provisions of Rule 113. Nothing illegal was found in the pockets of the 2 passengers of the tricycle. he was not arrested while in the act of shooting the 2 soldiers. b." They went to the address on 8/13/88 and arrived at the place about 11 AM. w/o warrant is also justified. the driver and the passengers of the tricycle did. or any other milder acts but equally in pursuance of the rebellious movement. Buenaobra manifested his desire to stay in the PC-INP stockade at Camp Crame. they asked the male person." referring to RC and other members of the rebel group. arrest a person: (a) When. Q. further detained by virtue of valid informations filed against them in court. The military found the place to be another safehouse of the NUFC/ CPP. A petition for HC was filed bef. Ramos. is now moot and academic and is accordingly dismissed. .the house and a little later come back and hand to the tricycle driver 'a suspicious stuff of a cigarette.) Dural was found guilty of the charge and is now serving the sentence imposed upon him by the trial court. the petition for HC on his behalf is now moot and academic. therefore. Sec. radio. no. Pajilan together with his companions approached the male person and the tricycle driver and after introducing themselves as police officers. Q. who was listed in the hospital records as Ronnie Javelon. an outlawed subversive organization. Nor was he arrested after the commission of said offense for his arrest came a day after the shooting incident. The 'suspicious stuff' taken from the accused were confirmed to be marijuana after tests were conducted on them. Roque was brought to the Caloocan City Fiscal for inquest after w/c an info. when lawful. 5(a) of the Rules of Court which provides: Sec.

xxx On 2/1/89. while he was sleeping in his home located at Sta. prel. He demanded that his sister be allowed to accompany him. Ocaya arrived in a car driven by Danny Rivera. No. The answer and the better practice would be. The rule is that if a person alleged to be restrained of his liberty is in the custody of an officer under process issued by a court or judge. He was next seen at about 5 PM at a gathering of drivers and sympathizers. Subversive documents and several rounds of ammunitions for a . and that the court or judge had jurisdiction to issue the process or make the order. inv. On 8/15/88. the indubitable existence of a crime. issued a resolution denying the petition for HC. Casiple and Roque claim that the firearms.. RPC. The military noticed bulging objects on their waist lines. MM. after the informations had been filed against them in court. filed against them are null and void for want of prel. At the PC stockade. the arrest of the petitioners is not a product of a witch hunt or a fishing expedition. filed w/ the competent court. could not produce any permit or authorization to possess the ammunition. filed against him w/ the RTC-Mkti. it appearing that said Narciso Nazareno is in the custody of the respondents by reason of an info. of PISTON. inv. HELD: The petitioner's claim that they were unlawfully arrested bec. the presiding judge of the RTC-Binan. the agents found them to be loaded guns. charging them w/ viol. v. a petition for HC was filed bef. she was arrested w/o a warrant and she refused to waive the provisions of Art. ROC. VI Espiritu v. MM. w/o a prel. Sec. picked up Nazareno and brought him to the police HQ for questioning. re-examination or re-appraisal. A was identified as "Ka Ted." Policemen waited for petitioners outside the NPC in order to investigate him. 5 (b). When he asked for the warrant. IV Ocaya v. or bef. w/ a view to its abandonment. ROC. Petitioner claims that at about 5 AM of 11/23/88. has been shown. he was awakened by his sister who told him that a group of persons wanted to hire his jeepney. Lim.) On the Ilagan Doctrine. 5 (b). as the court itself stated in Morales.. charging him w/ viol. ROC." (Peo. Deogracias Espititu is the Gen. Enrile. Petitioners refused to sign a waiver of the provisions of Art. no evil motive or ill will on the part of the arresting officers that could cause the said officers in these cases to accuse the petitioners falsely. 7. the officers. Hence. ROC. RPC (Inciting to sedition) was filed against him. pistol were found in Vicky Ocaya's car.III Anonuevo v. Umil v. Jr. judgement or order of commitment. when arrested. HELD: Vicky O. w/o warrant. Ramos. Upon questioning. 202 SCRA 251 . On 8/24/88. As pointed out by the Sol-Gen. 125. does not presuppose as a necessary requisite for the fulfillment thereof. The records show that they were carrying unlicensed firearms and ammunitions in their person when apprehended. On the other hand. R 113. and after investigation by the police.45 cal. Ancheta. The petitioners. of PD 1866 was filed w/ RTC-Pasig. had jurisdiction or not to issue the process. The obligation of an agent of authority to make an arrest by reason of a crime. there was no previous warrant. At about 7:30 PM on 8/13/88. a petition for HC was filed on behalf of these 2. 4. Sec. When he went down to talk to them. through tri-media was heard urging all drivers and operators to go on nationwide strike on 11/23/88 xxx. Mesa. in all petitions for HC. judgment or order or to take cognizance of the case. One of the suspects in the killing was Ramil Regala who was arrested by the police on 12/28/88. Laguna. inv. and the petitioner is detained by virtue of a valid info. have not introduced any evidence to support their claim. is w/o merit. 142. the men bodily lifted him and placed him in their owner type jeepney. this Court. armed w/ a search warrant. Rivera was released from custody. not to limit the function of HC to a mere inquiry as to w/n the court w/c issued the process. of PD 1866 was filed bef. Sec.. where he was heard as saying." RAM. In the course of the search. The filing of an info. was conducted bec. of the Ilagan case doctrine is not the answer. RTC-Pasig. it is sufficient that the agent or person in authority making the arrest has reasonably sufficient grounds to believe the existence of an act having the characteristic of a crime and that the same grounds exist to beleive that the person sought to be detained participated therein. At about 8:30 AM of 12/14/88. did not belong to them. When frisked. the writ of HC will not be allowed." and "only after such a scrutiny can the court satisfy itself that the due process clause of our Constitution in fact has been satisfied. In view thereof. Anonuevo.. For the detention to be perfectly legal. an info. Aguirre. On 5/12/88. VII Nazareno v. Station Commander. he may not be released on HC." and C as "Ka Totoy" of the CPP by their former comrades. of Art. head of the CPP-NPA. but he gave the lawmen his slip. Nor did petitioners ask for prel. ROC. one Romulo Bunye II was killed by a group of men in Alabang.. when O. v. R 102. the court must inquire into every phase and aspect of petitioner's detention-. An info. pursuant to R112. having been first conducted."from the moment petitioner was taken into custody up to the moment the court passes upon the merits of the petition. Ramos. "Bukas tuloy and welga natin .) VIII In all the petitions here considered. charging her w/ viol. hanggang sa magkagulo na. They were asked to show their permit or license to possess or carry firearms and ammunitions but they could not produce any. conducted a search of a house located at Marikina Green Heights. They were brought to the PC HQ for investigation. ammunitions and subversive documents alleged to have been found in their possession. is sanctioned by Rule 112. In the afternoon of 11/22/88. Sec. 7. 125 of the RPC. however. but the men did not accede to his request. after he was positively implicated by his co-accused." Since the arrest of the petitioner w/o warrant was in accordance w/ the provisions of R 113. HELD: The arrest of Nazareno was effected by the police w/o warrant pursuant to Sec. an info. during a press-con at the NPC "Deogracias E. was arrested in flagrante delicto so that her arrest w/o warrant is justified. Regala pointed to Nazareno as one of his companions in the killing of Bunye II. On 5/17/88. Mla. but the result of an in-depth surveillance of NPA safehouses pointed no less than by former comrades of the petitioners. whom the detained person is charged.. but were planted by the military to justify their illegal arrest. he was immediately put under arrest. criminal charges have been filed in the proper courts against the petitioners. The arrest of Domingo Anonuevo (A) and Ramon Casiple (C) w/o warrant is justified. A and C arrived at the house of RC w/c was still under surveillance. inv. Muntinglupa. (Sec. As the Court sees it. but rahter. agents of the PC Intelligence and Investigation Division of Rizal PC-INP Command. There is also no merit in the contention that the info. believed to be occupied by Benito Tiamson. or if such person is charged before any court. V The petitioners Ocaya. they were brought to PC HQ for investigation.

(2) a wounded person listed in the hospital records as "Ronnie Javelon" was actually then being treated in said hospital for for a gunshot wound. (3) "Ronnie Javelon" and his address entered in the hospital records were fictitious and the wounded man was in reality Dural. confined in the St. A reasonable suspicion therefore must be founded on probable cause. the authority of the peace officers to make the arrest. ADMISSIBLITY OF EXTRA-JUDICIAL ADMISSION. The reason which compelled the military agents to make the arrests w/o warrant was the info. 5 (a).. requires 2 conditions for a valid arrest w/o warrant: (1) the person to be arrested has just committed an offense and (2) the person arresting has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested is the one who committed the offense. the search warrant was duly issued to effect the search of the Constantino safehouse. he was committing an offense. an outlawed org.The peace officers who arrested Dural are deemed to have conducted the same in good faith. w/o warrant. D. Dural. GARCIA-PADILLA V. where membership is penalized. This rule is founded on an overwhelming public interest in peace and order in our community. His arrest was based on "probable cause. to the effect that an NPA was being treated for a gunshot wound was based on actual facts and supported by circumstances sufficiently to engender a belief that an NPA member was truly in said hospital. in their possession were unlicensed firearms..) ESPIRITU was arrested w/o warrant. To note these admissions.. coupled w/ good faith on the part of the peace officers making the arrest. wherefrom such characterization may reasonably be inferred by the officer or functionary to whom the law at the moment leaves the decision for the urgent purpose of suspending the liberty of the citizen. w/c means on actual belief or reasonable grounds of suspicion.-. are also justified. But. anywhere as agents or representative of an organized govt. that the persons arrested were probably guilty of the commission of certain offenses.His arrest w/o warrant is justified as it can be said that. and found in his possession were unlicensed firearms and communist equipment. at the time the words were uttered. explosives and/ or ammunitions on their persons. 1990) did not rule that mere suspicion that one is a CPP or NPA is a valid ground for his arrest w/o warrant. the suspicion that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of committing the offense. R. Roque. In the balancing of authority and freedom. Rolando Dural. i. the court. in compliance w/ Sec. who admitted that he was a ranking member of the CPP. not for subversive or any "continuing offense. had shot 2 CAPCOM policemen in their patrol car. 2 CAPCOM soldiers were actually killed in Bagong Bo.. Padilla.Although the killing of Bunye II occured on 12/14/88. Ocaya. is not to rule that the persons arrested are already guilty of the offenses upon w/c their warrantless arrests were predicated. would have shot or would shoot other policemen. they were positively identified by their former comrades as CPP/ NPA members. w/c confirmed the belief of the military that the info. ROC. at the time of arrest. the day before his arrest. As to A. The task of determining the guilt or innocence of persons arrested w/o warrant is not proper in a petition for HC. Nazareno has since been convicted by the court a quo for murder and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. Sanchez." but for uttering the words "Bukas tuloy ang welga natin xxx hanggang sa magkagulo na" w/c in the perception of the arresting officers. third. simply bec. Agnes Hospital. therefore.. the following circumstances surrounded said arrests (of Roque. given to the military that 2 safehouses (one occupied by RC and the other by Benito Tiamson) were being used by the CPP/ NPA for their operations. R113. It has been ruled that personal knowledge of facts in arrests w/o warrant must be based upon probable cause. They were searched pursuant to a warrant issued by a court of law and were found w/ unlicensed firearms. w/o warrant. Buenaobra's petition is moot bec. They were. when arrested. or soon thereafter. Buenaobra. Dural was identified as one of several persons who. ammunitions. and they admitted ownership thereof as well as their membership in the CPP/ NPA.. On 8/31/88.-. in the absence of actual belief of the arresting officers. It pertains to the trial of the case on the merits. while Nazareno's arrest w/o warrant was made only on 12/28/88 or 14 days later. The power to arrest w/o warrant is w/o limitation as long as the requirements of Sec. R 113. they had received was true and the persons to be arrested were probably guilty of the commission of certain crimes: first. a continuing crime. We find no merit in the motions for reconsideration. and for subversion w/c. ENRILE: ." (US v. on the other hand. The actual facts supported by circumstances are: (1) the day bef." Sec. 5 (a). since it was only on 12/28/88 that the police authorities came to know that Nazareno was probably one of those guilty in the killing of Bunye II and the arrest had to be made promptly. w/o obviously becomes difficult at times. informations were filed in court against said petitioners placing them w/in judicial custody and disposition. he was convicted and sentenced to reclusion perpetua. second. Dural did not cease to be. And at the time of the actual arrests. R 113. an info. is still another thing. A few days after Dural's arrest. caught in flagrante delicto w/c justified their outright arrest w/o warrant under Sec. even w/o a warrant (after the police were alerted) and despite the lapse of 14 days to prevent possible flight. has been provisionally dismissed and his bail cancelled. NAZARENO'S ARREST. ROC. These admissions strengthen the Court's perception that truly the grounds upon w/c the arresting officers based their arrests w/o warrant. It is in this sense that subversion and rebellion are anchored on an ideological base w/c compels the repetition of the same acts of lawlessness and violence until the overriding objective of overthrowing organized govt is attained. 5. He was placed under judicial custody.PETITION SEEKING SEPARATE MOTIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION FROM THE COURT'S DECISION PROMULGATED ON 9 JULY 1990 The decision (on July 9. was inciting to sedition. ROC. Buenaobra. or become less of a subversive.) Supervening events made this case moot and academic. teh arrest falls under Sec. tilted the scale in favor of authority but only for purposes of the arrest (not conviction. under Garcia v.. R113. found in the safehouse was a person named RC. is based on actual facts. w/in the contemplation of Sec. or on 1/31/88. 5 (b).-. the peace officers did not appear. A few days after their arrests. had bef. their arrests. he was. And then shortyly after their arrests. W. Many persons differ as to the validity of such perception and regard the language as falling w/in free speech guaranteed by the Consti. Said confidential info. w/o warrant. 5. w/ info. and/ or subversive documents. arraignment asked the court a quo for re-investigation. R 113 are met. charging him w/ Double murder w/ assault against agents of persons in authority was filed in RTC-Caloocan City. has in this case. ROC. On good faith. Caloocan City by 5 "sparrows" including Dural. supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested. The grounds of suspicion are reasonable when. "xxx The legality of the detention does not depend upon the fact of the crime. Dural was arrested for being a member of the NPA. 5. given another opportunity.e. Anonuevo. i. are supported by probable cause. Anonuevo and Casiple). as to their exact location and the names of RC and BT as residents and occupants thereof. An arrest is in the nature of an administrative measure. Casiple & V. R 113. at the time of their arrests. received by the arresting officers. like rebellion is. he had chosen to remain in detention. ENRILE and ILAGAN V.e. considering that law enforcers are presumed to regularly perform their official duties. for E. FOR PURPOSES OF ARREST. bec. but xxx upon the nature of the deed. Case against E.

but on the fact that the trial court believed the testimony of the policemen that they arrested him while he was actually engaged in the selling marijuana cigarettes to a member of the arresting party. Statement of Policy. (f) Any person arrested or detained or under custodial investigation shall be allowed visits by or conferences with any member of his immediate family. detained or under custodial investigation shall at all times be assisted by counsel. 3. in a language known to and understood by him. (e) Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of Art. or by any national NGO duly accredited by the CHR or by any international NGO duly accredited by the Office of the President. violence.It is the policy of the State to value the dignity of every human being and guarantee full respect for human rights. Rights of Persons Arrested. shall be in writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel. (c) The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by the investigating officer. Sec. or priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by him. force. or anyone acting under his order or in his place. Bam. shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. or thumbmarked if the person arrested or detained does not know how to read and write. 12. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of counsel. 195 SCRA 784 F: Accused Linsangan was arrested after a “buy-bust” operation. of his rights to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel. RAM. detains or investigates any person for the commission of an offense shall inform the latter. or other similar forms of detention are prohibited. who shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person arrested. After finding these positive for marijuana. Linsangan. otherwise. The trial court found Linsangan guilty. 11. Immunity from arrest of members of Congress Art. AND INVESTIGATING OFFICERS AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF. 7438 AN ACT DEFINING CERTAIN RIGHTS OF PERSON ARRESTED. such investigation report shall be null and void and of no effect whatsoever. one of the assertions of Linsangan was that the trial court erred in not holding that when the policemen required him to initial the marked bills. as well as compensation to and rehabilitation of victims of torture or similar practices. That is as it should be for as law enforcers. fiance or fiancee. What is important is that every arrest w/o warrant be tested as to its legality via habeas corpus proceedings. "custodial investigation" shall include the practice of issuing an "invitation" to a person who is under investigation in connection with an offense he is supected to have committed. in all offenses punishable by not more than six (6) years imprisonment (prision correcional). Duties of Public Officers. his right against self-incrimination was not violated for his possession of the marked bills did not constitute a crime. be privileged from arrest while Congress is in session.Assisting counsel is any lawyer. The trial court gave more credence to their categorical declarations than to the appellant’s denials. He was asked to sign his name on the two marked bills. --. it shall be read and adequately explained to him by his counsel or by the assisting counsel provided by the investigating officer in the language or dialect known to such arrested or detained person. intimidation. the subject of the prosecution was his act of selling marijuana cigarettes. they are presumed to have performed their official duties in a regular manner. Secret detention places. (d) Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested. grandparent or grandchild.(a) Any person arrested. and not to incriminate himself while under custodial investigation. A Senator or Member of the House shall. Rights of Persons under custodial interrogation Art. threat. otherwise such waiver shall be null and void and of no effect. Linsangan denied the charge. detained or under custodial investigation. (3) Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or sec. nephew or niece. and their families. Their task of apprehending persons engaged in the deadly drug trade is difficult enough without legal and procedural technicalities to make it doubly so. xxx B. detained or under custodial investigation shall be in writing and signed by such persons in the presence of his counsel or in the latter's absence. such extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible in evidence in any proceeding. If such person cannot afford the services of his own counsel. (1) Any person under custodial investigation for the commission of an offense. or any other means which vitiate the free will shall be used against him. Sec. Detained. the municipal mayor. (2) No torture. solitary. Act No. 17 hereof. VI. As used in this Act. Sec. --. or under custodial investigation. The ten handrolled cigarette sticks confiscated from the accused were submitted for examination. w/ greater vigor from the communist rebels. provided that before such report is signed. (b) Any public officer or employee. His conviction was not based on the presence of his initials on the marked bills. preferably of his own choice. ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS A VIOLATION OF THE ACCUSED’S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WHEN HE WAS MADE TO SIGN THE MARKED BILLS. or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel. shall have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. parent or child. HELD: Although the accused was not assisted by counsel when he initialed the P10-bills that the police found tucked in his waist. . The two marked tenpeso bill were retrieved from him. otherwise. III. elder brothers and sisters. those charged with conducting preliminary investigation or those charged with the prosecution of crimes. upon a valid waiver. without prejudice to the liability of the "inviting" officer for any violation of law. district school supervisor. uncle or aunt. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel. The person's "immediate family" shall include his or her spouse. Assisting Counsel. he must be provided with one. DETAINING. and guardian or ward. DETAINED OR UNDER CUSTODIAL INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE DUTIES OF THE ARRESTING. and in the presence of any of the parents. --. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled: Section 1. (4) The law shall provide for penal and civil sanctions for violations of this section. his spouse. Upon appeal. 125 of the RPC. (2) Illegal Possession of guns or drugs People v. 2. or under Custodial Investigation. except those directly affected by the case. he must be provided with a competent and independent counsel by the investigating officer. Sec. to remain silent.This Court finds no compelling reason at this time to disturb the same. the municipal judge. they violated his constitutional right to counsel. particularly in the light of prevailing conditions where national security and stability are still directly challenged perhaps. 11. brother or sister. incommunicado. who arrests. a case was filed for violation of the Dangerous Drugs Law. Rep.

The penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification shall also be imposed upon the investigating officer who has been previously convicted of a similar offense. Right to be reminded that if he waives his right to remain silent.000. Repealing Clause. 4. a policeman. prevents or prohibits any lawyer.00. on the prosecution. Effectivity.00 if the suspected person is chargeable with light felonies. then his rights must now be read. Source: Miranda v. or both. April 27. Right to counsel before and during the interrogation a) To mitigate the dangers of untrustworthiness in his testimony. Penalty Clause. for there can only be one purpose to the questioning. of the night shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than 4 years nor more than 6 years. 125 of the RPC.RA 857. The same penalties shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee. 2) "Custodial investigation" . a) To inform him that if he does not have counsel or cannot afford one. from visiting and conferring privately chosen by him or by any member of his immediate family with him.This Act shall take effect 15 days following its publication in the OG or in any daily newspaper of general circulation in the Philippines. The Right to Counsel During Custodial Investigations. at any hour of the day or. Since the introduction of the American accusatorial system of criminal procedure in the Phils. he does not have to defend himself alone. The question is on whom the burden of proof is placed. since the purpose of the interrogation is to evince evidence that can be used to prosecute the person. when a defendant is thrust into an unfamiliar atmosphere and run through menacing police interrogation procedures. (c) The amount of P350. --. b) To lessen the possibility of coercion by the police. as amended. then one will be provided for him by the state.(a) Any arresting public officer or employee. (Sec. A police investigation consists of 2 stages: 1) "General exploratory investigation" . 4. At this stage. 1992. anything he says can and will be used against him.) The reading of these rights is required during "custodial investigation". Sec. EOs or rules and regulations. the province comprising such municipality or city shall pay the fee: Provided. Arizona. It is at this stage that the Miranda ruling is necessary. PDs. Although he may already know these rights. Approved. detained or under custodial investigation. no custodial investigation shall be conducted and the suspected person can only be detained by the investigating officer in accordance with the provision of Art.when the investigation now focuses on the guilt of a person such that he is no longer allowed to leave the premise. any member of the immdediate family of a person arrested. RIGHT TO COUNSEL WAS DEVELOPED AS PART OF PROTECTION AGAINST INVOLUNTARY CONFESSIONS. the Miranda rule is not yet applicable. or from minitering to his sppiritual needs. Mendoza. admissible in evidence. otherwise.00 if the suspect is chargeable with a capital offense. or any investigating officer who fails to inform any person arrested.000. Sec. 436 (1966) According to Chief Justice Warren. For instance.00 if the suspected person is chargeable with less grave or grave felonies. The fee for the assisting counsel shall be paid by the city or municipality where the custodial investigation is conducted. Any person under custodial or police investigation has the right to be informed of the following rights: 1. 619.. Sec. since the inherent pressures initially overcome by the right to remain silent may again run unless coupled with the right to counsel. But once A arrests X and starts interrogating him in the police precinct. people who could otherwise explain their innocence would be arrested. the rule has been that involuntary confessions are inadmissible in evidence against the accused. Other laws. 61 Phil. ask him for an explanation as to what he saw without reading his Miranda rights. b) To make him aware that this is an adversary system. 3. b) To inform him that his poverty is no reason why he should lose his right to counsel. That the Municipal or City Treasurer must certify that no funds are available to pay the fees of assisting counsel before the province pays said fees. and a fine of P4. and that is to elicit evidence to be used to prosecute him. therefore. --.when the investigation consists merely of general questions to find out who might be the culprit. 2 Law Rev.The assisting counsel other than the government lawyers shall be entitled to the following fees: (a) The amount of P150. or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are repealed or modified accordingly. or from examining and treating him. detained or under custodial investigation of his right to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. 2 (1988). or anyone acting upon orders of such investigating officer or in his place. the officers must undertake to afford proper safeguards by the reading of the "Miranda rights" at the outset of the investigation to ensure that the statements made are truly the product of free choice. in urgent cases. Right to be reminded that if he cannot afford counsel. and that the police are not acting in his interest. (b) The amount of P250. LJ 409 I. In the absence of any lawyer. 384 U. where compulsion is forcefully potential and his will is likely to be subjugated. is hereby repealed. but without being directed at anyone's guilt in particular. (The reading of these rights is no less indispensable even if the person arrested is a prominent Constitutional lawyer. or any medical doctor or priest or religious minister or by his counsel.S. who fails to provide a competent and independent counsel to a person arrested. No. as to assure him that his interrogators are willing to respect his rights amidst the pressure of custodial investigation. Right to remain silent a) To make him aware of it. 5. the purpose is not so much to inform him. The early rule placed the burden of proving that the confession was voluntary and. any security officer with custodial responsibility over any detainee or prisoner may undertake such reasonable measures as may be necessary to secure his safety and prevent his escape. he can rung after X and having grabbed him.00 or a penalty of imprisonment of not less than 8 years but not more than 10 years. detained or under custodial inevstigation for the commission of an offense if the latter cannot afford the services of his own counsel. The provisions of the above Section notwithstanding. --. 4. 2. Act No. a) To warn him of the consequences of waiving his right to remain silent. shall suffer a fine of P6. b) To overcome the inherent pressure of the interrogating atmosphere c) To show the individual that his interrogators are prepared to recognize his privilege should he choose to invoke his right. 6.) It was held that a confession not shown to have been . sees X running with a stained knife away from an apparently dead man. provided that if the municipality or city cannot pay such fee. when A. (b) Any person who obstructs. 10.

The right to counsel must be afforded the accused the moment he is under custodial investigation and not only when a confession is being exacted from him. a further change took place when the SC held in Peo. are admissible. but also that it is false or untrue." xxx This is not bec. but before March 20. dissenting: He pointed out the lack of showing that improper suggestions had been made by the police to influence the witness in the identity of the accused. w/o a warrant. a person in custody may be interrogated. code of 1916. 1985. dissenting: The investigation had commenced the moment the accused was taken from the police line-up and made to sit in front of the complainant. does not state at what stage of the interrogation process they must be made. Since the circumstances surrounding in-custody interrogation can operate very quickly to overbear the will of one merely made aware of his privilege by his interrogators. 1973. even though presented in evidence in a trial after the effectivity of the 1973 Consti. Villanueva. 2.voluntarily given could be objected to at any stage of the proceedings. With regard to confessions obtained after March 20. such confessions. and to assure the individual that his interrogators are prepared to recognize his privilege. it is only after the investigation ceases to be a general inquiry into an unsolved crime and begins to focus on a particular suspect. the fact that he stood charged w/ an offense (vagrancy) and had been detained made the case different. the petitioner was not entitled to counsel xxx. THE CUSTODIAL PHASE OF INTERROGATION At what stage of the police interrogation must the warnings be given? The Consti. dissenting: The accused was in custody so that his confrontation w/ the complainant became adversarial and not informational. In the later case of Peo. knowing and intelligent" but the second cannot. to be valid. and/ or confessions or admissions from the accused. the methods used to extract them offend an underlying principle in the enforcement of our criminal law: that ours is an accusatorial and not an inquisitorial system -. SARMIENTO. 1987. The person in custody must be informed in clear and unequivocal terms that he has a right to remain silent. in most cases. Jan. With respect to confessions obtained bef. xxx Indeed. SC: 1. The next day. The first can be made provided that the waiver is "voluntary.a system in w/c the State must establish guilt by evidence independently and freely secured and not by coercion prove its charge against an accused out of his own mouth xxx. In Gamboa v. CRUZ. 3. J w/ GANCAYCO. J. to be repudiated. regardless of their truth." (Rogers v. J. w/c proscribes the use of such cruel and inhuman methods to secure confessions. In 1953. the rule is that a waiver of the rights to remain silent and to the assistance of counsel. but in Miranda. it is said that an "unconstitutional coercion will render inadmissible even the most unquestionably true inculpatory statements. in Peo. Urro. he was included in a police line-up of 5 detainees and was pointed to by the complainant as a complanion of the main suspect on the basis of w/c the accused was ordered to stay and sit in front of the complainant. As the Court indicated in Escobedo v.. it was sufficient that the confession was given under conditions w/c accredit prima facie its admissibility. to overcome the inherent pressures of the interrogation atmosphere. whether exculpatory or inculpatory. YAP. even for the first time on appeal in the SC. Under the new rule. v. People's Court. the suspect is taken into custody. should he choose to exercise it. we mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken to custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way. It is important to distinguish bet. are null and void. Frankfurter. HELD: The right to counsel attaches only upon the start of an interrogation. The purpose is to apprise him of his privilege not to be compelled to incriminate himself." it is obvious that there can be no valid waiver of the warnings. and the police carries out a process of interrogation that leads itself to eliciting incriminating statements that the rule begins to operate. Miranda v. The illegality of the means used in obtaining evidence does not affect its admissibility (Moncado v.) THE MIRANDA RULE The prosecution may not use statements. He was taken to police precint no. By custodial interrogation. III. the rule is that the voluntariness of a waiver of the rights to silence and to counsel must be determined on a case-to-case basis. the accused is compelled against his will to tell a falsehood. The person in custody must be warned that anything he will say can and wilol be used against him. not even when such force and violence he is compelled to tell the truth. it is indispensable that he has the assistance of counsel. bec. the Court. MIRANDA WARNINGS WERE DEVISED AS MEANS OF SECURING THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL. xxx II. 17. Act No. His motion was denied. when the decision of Peo. such confessions are unlikely to be true but bec. Hence. 1973. v. for vagrancy. Arizona requires certain warnings to be given by police interrogators bef. v. the rule that the suspect must be warned that he has a right to remain silent and to have the assistance of counsel does not apply. 1. while the latter made a statement to the police. when the present Consti. must not only be proved to have been obtained by force and violence. With respect to confessions obtained after Jan. taking into account the circumstances under w/c the waiver was made. Cruz. 2 in Mla. Richmond. provided they are voluntary. As the police line-up in this case was not part of the custodial inquest. xxx Involuntary or coerced confessions obtained by law. 3. . the accused was arrested. in this case. de los Santos that "A confession. WAIVER OF RIGHTS.) THE EFFECT OF THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE IN SEARCH AND SEIZURE CASES The adoption in 1967 of the exclusionary rule in search and seizure cases (Stonehill v. The accused moved to dismiss the case against him on the ground that he had been denied the assistance of counsel during the line-up. this petition for certiorari. W/o expressly overruling its decision in de los Santos and Villanueva. went back to the former rule that involuntary or coerced confessions. by force or violence or intimidation. w/c have been adopted by the Phil. Illinois. using the traditional test of voluntariness. the Court stated "the admissibility of that kind of evidence depends not on the supposed illegal manner in w/c it is obtained but on the truth or falsity of the facts or admission contained therein. knowing and intelligent. when the police officer starts to ask questions designed to elicit info. it is merely part of evidence-gathering process. A waiver of rights will not be presumed. This warning is intended to make him aware not only of the privilege but also of the consequences of foregoing it. must be made w/ the assistance of counsel. While a police lineup is not per se critical. unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. 619 was later repealed by the Admin. Galit was handed down. for the law rejects the confession when. v. the waiver of rights and the waiver of warnings. in the US. w/c placed the burden of proof on the accused to show that his confession was involuntary. stemming from custodial interrogation of the def. the court specified that it is only at the custodial phase of the interrogation that its ruling applied. 2. The accused was then charged w/ robbery. 2. took effect.. 1985 but before Feb. IN TURN. while the latter was interrogated. 17. Diokno) worked a parallel in the law of confession. As the warnings are the means of insuring that the suspect is apprised of his rights so that any subsequent waiver of his rights can be "voluntary.

The Court noted the cost imposed on the public by the rule. 2. albeit. With regard to confessions given after Feb. this social cost outweights the need for Miranda safeguards. the SC created a "public safety" exception to the Miranda rule. In such exigent circumstances.. Quarles. the Consti. IX. Although the previous Consti. as a def. claimed that what he had sold to a police officer was baking powder. Any confession or admission obtained in violation of this or Sec. free from the risk of confrontation w/ prior inconsistent utterance In New York v.. No similar phraseology is used in the exclusionary rule implementing the Miranda rule. must be in writing and w/ the assistance of counsel. xxx. as part of the scheme to defraud the purchaser xxx The shiled provided by Miranda cannot be perverted into a license to use perjury by way of a defense. that the giving of warnings might deter suspects from answering questions and this might lead in turn to fewer convictions. in a prosecution for selling heroin. requires that the waiver to be valid. where uncounselled statements may nevertheless be admissible in evidence. For "if a statement made wore in fact exculpatory." EXCEPTIONS TO THE EXCLUSIONARY RULE The phrase "for any purpose in any proceeding" conveys the idea that the rule excluding evidence illegally obtained is absolute. it could . When answers are not actually coerced. 1987. No distinction is made bet. Does this mean there can be instances. US. spoke of confessions only. in fact." It held that the warnings were not themselves Constitutional rights but merely "prophylactic" measures to insure the right against self-incrimination. It then ruled that the social cost is higher when the giving of warnings might deter suspects from answering questions than are necessary to avert an immediate threat to public safety. namely.. the present Consti. giving the warnings at the risk that public safety will be endangered and withholding the warnings at the risk that probative evidence will be excluded. . it may nevertheless be presented in evidence to impeach his credit. it was held that although a confession obtained w/o complying w/ the Miranda rule was inadmissible for the purpose of establishing in chief the confessor's guilt. says. Petitioner. never be used by the prosecution. police officers must not be made to choose bet.4. for a limited purpose? In Harris v. THE EXLUSIONARY RULE. 17 hereof shall be inadmissible in evidence against him. statements merely intended to be exculpatory by the defendant are often used to impeach his testimony at trial or to demonstrate untruths in the statement given under interrogation and thus to prove guilt by implication. I have argued that it was not so limited but that it also embraced uncounselled statements. "There is public safety exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a suspect's answers may be admitted in evidence. confession or admission.

You're Reading a Free Preview

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