Laws Pobres

Kwaknit Notes
Section 2 Article 3 1987 Constitution The right of the people to be secure in their persons, house, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue, except upon a probable cause to be determined personally by a judge, after examination under oath or affirmation of the complaint and the witnesses he may produce, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized. Probable cause for search warrant  facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that object sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. (Prudente vs Dayrit) Probable cause for an arrest warrant  such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by a man sought to be arrested.  Search warrants are jurisdictional. It must be issued by the court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed or any court within the same judicial region where the crime was committed. (Sony Computer Entertainment vs Supregreen Inc.) AM No. 99-20-09-SC, application of search warrant in the RTC of Manila and Quezon City personally endorsed by the heads of PNP, NBI, PAOC-TF and REACT-TF for heinous crimes, illegal gambling, dangerous drugs and illegal possession of firearms are enforceable all throughout the Philippines. If the head of the agency delegated such ministerial duty to his assistant, it is not prohibited provided that the delegated subordinate shall have no additional compensation and the delegation is not inconsistent with the law. (Marimla vs People) Search warrant shall be valid for 10 days from date of issue. Search Warrant Requirement for a valid search warrant: [ Section 3 Rule 126] 1. Probable cause is present. 2. Such presence is determined personally by the judge. 3. The complainant and the witnesses are personally examined by the judge, in writing and under oath or affirmation. 3. 4. 5. The applicant and witnesses testify on facts personally known to them. The warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized.

1

Principles for a valid search warrant. 1. Issuance based on a probable cause. • Within personal knowledge of the petitioner/ complainant/ applicant or his witnesses • Information coming from another source will not suffice to render probable cause as this is hearsay. 2. Personal determination of the judge of the complainant and his witnesses • It is sufficient that a judge follows established procedure by personally evaluating the report and the supporting documents of the prosecutor. (Enrile vs Salazar) • Personal satisfaction of the issuing judge that there is indeed a probable cause suffices the requirement. Personal examination of the persons of the complainant and his witnesses may not be resorted if the judge is already satisfied that there is indeed a probable cause by mere deliberation of the report and its attached documents, made by the fiscal. (Soliven vs Makasiar) • The examination must be in the form of searching questions in order to determine probable cause. (Silva vs Presiding Judge) [It is postulated during the discussion that searching questions are used when a law enforcer directly approaches a judge with his witnesses without the prosecutor.] • The examination must be reduced in writing in the form of searching questions and answers. (People vs Mamaril) Specific description of the place. • It is essential that the warrant particularly describe the place to be searched, the manifest intention being that the search be confined strictly to the place so described. (People vs CA) • The rule is that a description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the pace intended to be searched. (People vs Salanguit) [mao ni sya diri ang 1ay help sa mga sketches and

(Uy vs BIR) • [If ang things na illegally seized are dangerous drugs. it does not render the entire warrant void. ii. • A search warrant for more than one offense is known as a ‘scatter-shot warrant’. Any description of the place and thing to be searched that will enable the officer making the search with reasonable certainty to locate such place of this is sufficient. Readily identify the properties to be seized and thus prevent them from seizing the wrong items. . The search warrant is severable. Leave said officers with no discretion regarding the articles to be seized and thus prevent unreasonable searches and seizures. (Del Rosario vs Donato Sr) • It was discussed that the remedy of this is to issue multiple warrants with different offense. and it violated Section 3 Rule 126 of the revised Rules of Court therefore making it totally null and void. It is only necessary that there be reasonable particularity and certainty as to the identity of the property to be searched for and seized. Exceptions to the rule. [kwaknits lang nag discuss ani] Warrantless Search All warrantless search are void.] Specific offense (One-offense rule). 1. (People vs Tee) • If the description of most of the things in the warrant does not meet the constitutional requirement of particularity. and all evidences obtained from these are held inadmissible as evidences in court. Search incident to a lawful arrest (Sec13 Rule126 RoC) • 2 • 4. (Tambasan vs People) 5. This will be retained by the State and will be properly dealt with. 7 and 11 at Binhagan St. • The things to be seized must be described with particularity.] It does not matter if the person named in the warrant is not a resident of the place to be searched since the warrant is to search the place not the person. and those items not particularly described may be cut off without destroying the whole warrant. medical drugs.Laws Pobres Kwaknit Notes 2ay mga markings na timaan sa place like atong ‘a house with no number between houses no. Specific description of the objects to be seized. dili gihapon ni sila iuli sa tag-iya. (Vallejo vs CA) • The constitutional requirement of reasonable particularity of description of the things to be seized is primarily meant to enable law officers serving the warrant to: i. so that the warrant shall not be a mere roving commission. Technical precision of description is not required. firearms and the likes.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.