PART 1 SEARCH AND SEIZURES The issuance of a search warrant 2 basic requisites

have committed a crime, he can still be arrested because he was caught Inflagrante Delicto . PEOPLE VS SALANGUIT: the search warrant ordered the search to the residence of Robert Salanquit at San Jose, Quezon City, now there is no house number; would you say that is is not valid because it is not that specific? Now you have to look into the application of the warrant because this might be considered. In this case, attached to the application which states that the premises to be searched was located in between number 7 and number 11 of Bihanan Street, to thin that it is sufficient enough because the police officer can determine which is in bet. number 7 and number 11. And more to the point there is a sketch of the place. So the location Salanguit being indicated on the affidavit on record. Again it doesn’t have to have technically precise as long as there is other descriptions. THE PLACE TO BE SEARCHED CANNOT BE MODIFIED BY THE OFFICERS OWN PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE PREMISES meaning if what it is in the warrant then that’s it, the searching officer cannot amplify or modify it. PEOPLE VS CA: the warrant was issued ordering the search of Abbygail Variety Store particularly Apartment 1207 in San Jose del Monte Bulacan, so that is specific enough, now the searching officers went there, they discovered that it was not the place they intended to search, it is actually Apartment Number 1 immediately adjacent to the store, so they searched that apartment, adjacent to the store because, because that was what is in their mind when they applied for search warrant. Now during the search they were able to arrest 4 Pakistani Nationals and seized several drugs. Are this evidence admissible? Or is the search valid? It is not because what is put in the information of search warrant is the Abigail Variety store, well in fact what they have in mind is the apartment adjacent to the store. What is important is what is in the search warrant, not the place in the minds of the searching officers, because if that’s the case the searching officers can just choose the place to be searched, even if not included in the warrant. PEOPLE VS FRANCISICO: Here the judge issued a search warrant for the seizure of shabu of Francisco at a specific address 122 M DIZON STREET, CALAOCAN CITY. The application was in fact is accompanied by a sketch, specifying the location of the house and during the application the police even described as having two floors, concrete and green in color. Now when the executed the warrant they searched the residence of the accused, which turned out to be not on 122 M Dizon but at 120. There they obtain 200 grams of shabu, is the evidence admissible?, Now here 120M Dizon St. is not in anyway similar to the description of 122M Dizon St., 122 is two-storey residential building owned but some other person, while 120 is actually a compound, consisting of 3 apartments enclosed by only one gate, the accused there actually rented the 3rd unit. Now it turned out that when they executed the warrant the searching officer cannot not in any reasonable effort identify the place intended, precisely because it was wrongly describe. The searching officer cannot qualify or amplify. Because again what is material is the description set in the search warrant. PEOPLE VS ESTRADA: in relation to the violation of the consumer act, BFAD applied for and was issued a search warrant; the warrant was issued against this person of 515 San Jose dela Montana St., Cebu City, for seizure of drug products. When they went to the place, they found a 5000 sq meter compound, now that compound has 15 structures used as residences, office, factories, workshops and houses. Is the search warrant valid? Can the searching officer with reasonable effort ascertain the place to be search? Now how can he ascertain that, if what is is the warrant 515 **** Cebu City, saan dun sa 15 structures ang hahanapin nya? Therefore although prima facie the warrant is valid, when executed it is already invalid, because it turned out that it did not particularly describe the place to be searched PICOP VS ASUNCION: they were searching for illegal firearms, they also question the validity of the search warrant, what is included is to search the place located at PICOP Compound Brgy. Tabon District, Surigao del Sur, now is the

1. 2.

Probable cause Warrant must include the place to be searched and the things to be seized

PARTICULARITY OF THE PLACE TO BE SEARCH AND THE THINGS TO BE SEIZED PLACE TO BE SEARCH: the particularity requirement in the search is to prevent what is referred to in the case of DIOKNO VS STONEHILL as a general warrant GENERAL WARRANT : it is a general warrant it can be use as a tool for fishing expedition, if there is no particularity of the place to be search and things to be seize by the police officer, wherein the police officer executing the warrant would be able to exercise discretion so it has to be particular and specific PARTICULARITY OF THE PLACE TO BE SEARCH: the description of the place is sufficient if the officer of the warrant, with reasonable effort ascertain and identify the place intended to be search and distinguish it from other places or vicinity . In other words, as long as the description points out to the place to the exclusion of all others, then it it sufficient. CASES UY VS BIR: the caption of the search warrant states that the address is HERNAN CORTEZ ST., CEBU CITY , but in the search warrant it is HERNAN ST., MANDAUE CITY. Now based on this alone would you say that the search warrant is valid? It what that the enforcing officers had difficulty in finding the place as describe in the warrant, now therefore knowing that the warrant identified the city correctly, it will not make the warrant invalid. You go back to the basic, as long as the searching officer can with his reasonable effort ascertain and identify the place. In other words if there is discrepancy I will not automatically ipso facto invalidate the warrant. UY VS ____: They also question the search warrant because the search warrant because the name of the of the alleged owner of the place. There were two warrants issued the second warrant apparently to correct the inconsistency of the first search warrant , the first warrant was issued uychingho*** , I think they thought that it was incorrect, so they applied for the issuance of the second search warrant, this time uychingho*** and unit** corporation. Now is there a defect in the description of the place to be searched? Now the constitution does not actually require the name of the person who occupies the named premises, If what is to be searched is the place and not the person, so if a warrant is issued for the search of a premises only and not for search of a person, the error on the occupant of the property does not invalidate the warrant, because what is to be search is the place and it is now irrelevant, who occupies the place or who owns the place. QUELNAN VS PEOPLE: in that case, a search warrant was issued against a certain Bernard Lim of Room 615 Cityland Condominium, South Superhighway, Makati Ciy . Now it turned out that the police officer, searched the place and no Bernard Lim was found there, but there was Juan Hernan, and few grams of shabu. Now charged with dangerous drugs law, he thinks that the shabu is inadmissible against him since the warrant as issued against Bernard Lim, is this contention correct? Again the constitution does not require, the warrant to named the person who occupies the place, as long as the intention is to searched the place and not the person, if he happens to be there and he was found to

description of the place to be search sufficient? Now when they went to the place, PICOP is not just even a compound, it is a 155 hectares property. Now that compound has 200 offices, buildings etc. Again it would seem that on its face that the warrant is valid but when executed it turned out that the place was not describe with particularity. YAO SR. VS PEOPLE: also involves a compound located at Governor’s Drive,Barangay Lapidalyo, Trese Martires, Cavite. The decision of the SC here is for the validity of the search warrant, the SC said here that the search warrant has particularly described the place to be search, this is a compound consisting of 10,000 sq meters, why is this now valid? The application is in relation to violation of intellectual property, the accused here is charged for infringement of petron and phil shell product, they used the logo of shellane in their cylinders, so merong imitation, now the entire compound is dedicated to this imitation, from the machinery etc., in other words there I no need to particularize the place because, all structures constitute the essential and necessary components of the petitioner’s business. The SC said that the search warrant has particularly describe the place to be search, because the objective really is to search the whole compound. THINGS TO BE SEIZED What may be seize? Under section 3 of rule 126 -a search warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of personal property, subject of the offense, documents, stolen/proceeds of the offense, use/intended to use means of committing an offense. RULE: 1. THE THINGS TO BE SEIZED MUST BE DESCRIBE WITH PARTICULARITY, FOR THE PERSON WHO IS SERVING THE WARRANT TO DETERMINE THE THING

particularly describe? The Sc said no? Why? Li Because it does not specify whether they have been legally or illegally obtained by the owner, malay mo binili nya yon!, it can be for personal or business used! Some items might have been legally obtained, and is not related to copyright infringement. IS THE ENTIRE SEARCH WARRANT INVALID? It could be valid in one art and invalid in another part, a search warrant therefore is separable , you can separate the invalid and use the valid portion. PEOPLE VS TY: the description is seizure of undetermined amount of marijuana IS THAT VALID? IS THAT SUFFICIENT? When they executed the search warrant, they got 33.93 KILOS, the description in the search warrant is undetermined amount of marijuana is that sufficient? Yes!, so again it does need to be technically precise, you cannot be expected to know the exact weight. PEOPLE VS NUNEZ: the search warrant is for search of shabu and paraphernalia in the course of the search he also get a ladies wallet because for the executing officer he believed that it can be considered a proceeds of the crime as well camera, grinder, and speakers etc.! IS THE SEARCH VALID? Yes, BUT IS THE ACTUAL SEARCH VALID? The searching officer modified the search warrant, which is what the constitution is preventing. So in the case the items which the officer believed, in his opinion are proceeds of the crime would be considered inadmissible. IT MUST BE ISSUED IN RELATION TO ONE SPECIFIC OFFENSE STONEHILL VS DIOKNO: in that case the search warrant was issued with the application stating that the accused committed a violation of the Central bank laws, tariff and customs laws, internal revenue code, RPC etc. WHAT DO YOU HAVE? A GENERAL WARRANT! It is already a fishing expedition! Because of this case the SC has ruled that a search warrant must be issued for specific offense, you must show certain facts and circumstances, that cannot be done in one application, in other words if there are several offenses, the presumption is that there is no probable cause, SO ANU GAGAWIN MU NGYAUN? IF THIS ARE RELATED OFFENSES? You make as many applications as there are offenses and the search warrant should be for one specific offense, therefore if you have 3 offenses, you must have 3 search warrants. PEOPLE VS DEJOSO: the search warrant is for search of shabu, marijuana and paraphernalia and the search warrant mentioned that it is for illegal possession of marijuana, shabu etc. in connection therewith, the lawyer said that the search warrant is invalid, because they are able to get shabu, marijuana and paraphernalia it is invalid accdg to the lawyer because a search warrant should be for one specific offense only. The dangerous drugs act penalizes possession of shabu, possession of marijuana and possession of paraphernalia under different sections or provisions, so accdg to him it is not one specific offense IS HE CORRECT? No according to SC it is not persuasive, the DDRUGSACT is a special law and that offenses punishable under it could be classified as one because they belong to the same class or species, meaning one search warrant would be valid. It FRUDENTE VS DAYRIT: this is an alleged violation of Illegal possession of firearms, so here it includes illegal firearms and illegal ammunition it violate the one offense, one warrant, but according to SC no the violation under this special law and they are within the same category, they are of the same species. PEOPLE VS SIMBANGUN: in this case the search warrant is for violation of RA 6425, the warrant includes a directive to search for shabu, paraphernalia and a revolver IS THE SEARCH WARRANT VALID? Is the revolver categorize the same as the drugs? No! what you have therefore is s a search warrant for not none specific offense but 2, one under the dangerous drugs act and the other illegal possession of firearms, THIS IS AN EXAMPLE THAT THE WARRANT IS INVALID BECAUSE THERE ARE TO OFFENSES INCLUDED IN ONE SEARCH WARRANT.

CO VS MACALINTAL: unlicensed radio communication equipment, transmitters, scanners, monitoring devices and others, search for unlicensed firearms etc. ARE THE THINGS TO BE SEIZED PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED? If you are the searching officer are you already particular with the things to be searched for? The law does not require that the things to be seized must be describe in precise detail. It does not to be that technically precise, as long as the searching officer with reasonable effort ascertains the things to be seize. ARE THE SEARCH WARRANTS VALID? Yes, they particularly described the things to be seized. ALWOOD CASE: they actually describe the things to be searched with precise particularity, 1.45 caliber pistol, 15.56 m16 rifle, 19mm pistol, explosives etc., in fact when they made a search , they found the following but not the same quantity as that included in the search warrant and found other things like dynamite not included in the search warrant. ARE THE THINGS SEIZED ADMISSIBLE? Yes, because because they are of the same nature, they are of the same kind, IN OTHER WORDS SUBSTANTIAL SIMILARITY WOULD SUFFICE!, because it does not need precise description or technical description as long as they are of the same description it is sufficient to make the seizure of the things valid. MICROSOFT VERSUS: the search warrant issued by the court partly describe the items to be seized , A. PRINT PAGKAGES, WRAPPERS, ADVERTISMENTS ETC. AND TRADEMEARKS OWNED BY MICROSOFT CORPORATION , B. CDROM DRIVES, KEYBOARD, MONITORS ETC. USED/INTENDED TO BE USED FOR ILLEGAL REPRODUCTION OF MICROOSOFT SOFTWARE, this is for alleged copyright infringement. HAS THE SEARCH WARRANT DESCRIBED WITH PARTICULARITY THE THINGS TO BE SEIZED? As to letter B the answer is yes, computer hardware etc. used/intended to be used for the reproduction of Microsoft software, the articles to be seized was physically particularize as related to the used/intended used for the reproduction of the software of Microsoft. As to letter A those bearing the trademark of Microsoft Corporation, has that been

VALLE VS CA: the search warrant is for falsification of land titles, offenses under RPC and anti graft and corrupt act, IS THE SEARCH VALID? This is a scattered search warrant, KASI ANG WARRANT MARAMING TINATAMAAN, this is invalid because it is more than one specific offense. PART 2 CONSTITUTIONAL REQUISITES WARRANT OF ARREST FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A

an individual, who commits an offense against the state, that is why in criminal prosecutions, the lawyer is a government official under DOJ and we call him the prosecutor. So the role of the prosecutor if he will find that there is a probable cause then he will file a charge, the charge is called the information. 5. AFTER THE FILING OF THE INFORMATION IN THE COURT IT IS NOW THE DUTY OF THE JUDGE WITHIN 10 DAYS WILL DETERMINE PROBABLE CAUSE (to issue warrant of arrest). WE NOW HAVE A CASE THAT IS DOCKETED.

The same as that of the issuance of search warrant because both are covered by the same section, Section 2. 1. 2. Probable cause Particularity of the Person to be seized (seizure of a person)

Why is arrest important? Based on our discussion on procedural due process in court proceedings. ARREST IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT IS THE TIME THE COURTS CAN ACQUIRE JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSON. So you will have to determine a probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest. PROBABLE CAUSE HERE ARE FACTS AND CIRSCUMSTANCES TO GIVE A REASONABLY PRUDENT MAN TO BELIEVE THAT THE CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED AND THE PERSON TO BE ARRESTED ACTUALLY COMMITTED THE CRIME. HOW WILL THE JUDGE DETERMINE PROBABLE CAUSE? THE CONSTITUTION SAYS MUST PERSONALLY DETERMINE. BUT IN REALITY THERE IS ALREADY A COOPERATION MADE BY THE PROSECUTOR IN HE DETERMINATION OF PROBABLE CAUSE. PARANG REVIEW NALANG UNG SA JUDGE SO PROBABLE CAUSE IN THE ISSUANCE OF WARRANTT OF ARREST WOULD MEAN, PERSONAL EVALUATION OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE PROSECUTOR, THE RESOLUTION BY THE WAY AY UNG NARESOLVE NA NG PROSECUTION NA MAY CRIME THE RESOLUTION IS THAT THERE IS A CRIME, THERE IS A PROBABLE CAUSE UN NA UNG GAGAWIN NYANG INFORMATION. SO PERSONAL EVELUATION OF THE RESOLUTION ANF CERTIFICATION OF THE PROSECUTOR THAT THERE EXIST PROBABLE CAUSE. DISTINCTION SEARCH WARRANT AND WARRANT OF ARREST In search warrant it is the judge who personally ask questions from the applicant In warrant of arrest the prosecutor already ask the applicant, there will be multiplicity of work if the judge will do it again, because now the judge will just personally check the resolution of the prosecution and the supporting evidence, what can the judge do? If he finds that there is probable cause he shall issue warrant of arrest. But if he is not satisfied with the resolution of the prosecution, he may in case of doubt, may order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within 5 days from notice. This time he may ask the prosecutor to present witnesses or complainant in case of doubt and additional evidence. PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION In preliminary investigation he prosecutor will determine if there is probable cause, if the accused can be charge of the offense committed and once the resolution is forwarded to the judge the latter with again after confirming that there is probable cause can immediately issue a warrant of arrest MAY THE JUDGE RELY SOLELY ON THE PROSECUTION The judge will satisfy himself before issuing a warrant of arrest or order of arrest, he may dismiss it, issue a warrant or require more evidence or testimony of the witnesses, in other words, the judge should not rely solely on the certification or resolution of the prosecutor, he must review the records on file, the documentary evidence etc. WEBB V DE LEON and SOLIVEN VS MAKASIAR -exclusive responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause, the judge is required to personally examine the complaint and his witnesses. PROBABLE CAUSE IN PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION VERSUS PROBABLE CAUSE IN WARRANT OF ARREST.

RELE 112 SECTION 6 OF RULES OF COURT (WARRANT OF ARREST) WHAT IS AN ARREST? -it is a taking of a person in custody in order that, he/ she will be bound to answer for the commission of an offense, again the constitutional protection is against unreasonable seizure. FIRST REQUIREMENT: there must be probable cause in the issuance of warrant of arrest, what is probable cause? Are again facts and circumstances which will lead a reasonable man to believe that a crime has been committed and it has been committed by the person to be arrested. The same for the probable cause of the issuance of a warrant of arrest. So prudent man would not point out is any man with common sense, so as long as the facts and circumstances would somehow support the conclusion that the crime has been committed and the person to be arrested has committed it then it is sufficient as probable cause. WHEN SHALL A WARRANT OF ARREST BE ISSUED? IN RELATION TO WHO WILL DETERMINE PROBABLE CAUSE? We will be talking about the general scenario, when a warrant of arrest may be issued by the court, It may be issued by the Regional trial Court or the Municipal Trial Court. After the filing of the information or complaint the judge may now start to determine the existence of probable cause and if there is probable cause he may issue the warrant of arrest. Now recall the procedure in the issuance of search warrant 1. 2. POLICE DIRETSO SA JUDGE JUDGE WILL DETERMINE THE PROBABLE CAUSE BY ASKING THE COMPLAINT OR THE APPLICANT





Why would he look for probable cause? Because when he goes to trial the prosecutor is the lawyer for the state, remember that in criminal cases it is captioned as PP vs Anne Curtis, because a criminal proceeding is a proceeding against


PC in preliminary investigation in done by prosecutor (executive) PC in warrant done by judge (judiciary)

If the judge are required to personally determine the complainants and the witnesses if will take much of his time, he can just do this actual trial, because that is his function during actual trial and besides there is already initial conduct done by the prosecutor, ito ang wala sa issuance ng search warrant, walang involvement ung another office. PEOPLE VS GREY: the SC said that the judge should not base solely on the report of the investigating prosecutor. LIM VS FELIX: this involves the murder of Moises Espinosa, the crime is committed in Masbate, kung saan nacommit ang crime dun ang jurisdiction, however because Espinosa is popular, mga connections, the accussed asked for the transfer of the venue, which is the function of the supreme court under article 8, the Sc ordered the transfer of venue, so it was transferred to Makati. When he received the initial information, the Makati judge issued the warrant of arrest, pursuant to the rules,, as it turned out the rest of the records are still in Masbate Court, what is the conclusion therefore? The judge in Makati relied solely on the information that there is probable cause to file the charge against the accussed, so in this case the warrant of arrest was invalidly issued. THERE ARE CERTAIN RULES LAID ISSUANCE OF WARRANT OF ARREST 1. DOWN IN THE

ABDULA VS GUIANI: according to the accused the warrant of arrest is void because the judge did not personally examine the evidence, nor did he call the complainants to the witnesses stand. The judge made a reply he commented, that there was no reason for him to doubt the validity of the certification made by the prosecutor that the preliminary investigation was conducted and that probable cause was found to exist, SAAN DITO MALI ANG JUDGE? There is an admission that he relies solely on the certification of the prosecutor, so in that case the warrant of arrest was invalidly issued, because of the admission of the judge. TALINGDAN VS EDUARTE: here the complaint or libel was filed directly with the judge, this is what will happen if you will not get a lawyer, he is fortunate that the clerk of court issued the warrant of arrest and according to him he just merely signed it. So the complaint was filed with the judge and the warrant of arrest was issued. SHOULD THE JUDGE BE ABSOLVED? No, it is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the judge to satisfy himself; he merely relied on the existence of probable cause making him administratively liable. ARE THERE INSTANCES OF WARRANTLESS ARREST WHICH CAN BE CONSIDERED AS VALID? When there is material lack of time to secure for warrant of arrest: 1. Peace officer or a private person may without warrant arrest a person a. When in his presence the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing or is about to commit an offense, inflagrante delicto cases/caught in the act -the police officer is a witness to the crime PEOPLE VS MOLINA: the police man received an information from an asset that a drug pusher would be passing by, so he sent a team to go to the area, consequently the tricycad carrying the accused was stopped by the policemen and then the accused was arrested thereafter he was ordered to open the bag, so inside the bag there were marijuana. IS THE ARREST VALID? Is this an arrest made inflagrante delicto? No, reliable information alone will not suffice the accused must perform some overt act to show that he is attempting to commit, he is commit or has committed an offense, in this offense no such overt act was shown, thus it is not an inflgrante delicto. PEOPLE VS RACHO: an agent transacted through the phone to the accused (drug transaction) after the transaction in the phone the agent reported it to the police and the police sent a team kasi dun mangyayari ang transaction to the bus terminal, the accused after riding a bus rode a trycicad and there he was arrested, is this an instance of inflgrante delicto case? was he caught on the act? So in this case again the information, the knowledge only came from a tip/agent, even if it is called a reliable information alone it will not be sufficient, there is a need for an overt act, that the accused is committing an offense. PEOPLE VS BOLASA: the police here also received tip that the man and a woman is packing a marijuana, there is also an address given, there they went to the said address and they saw the man and the woman packing the marijuana, they entered the house and arrested the accused, again

Preliminary Investigation, the preliminary inquiry to determine the probable cause whether a warrant of arrest should be issued or not. Filing of the information to the court the judge will personally determine the probable cause if a warrant of arrest should be issued or not. a. Personally determine the evidence and complaints Disregard the report and ask for additional evidence and personally ask the witnesses.



ISSUANCE OF SEARCH WARRANT VERSUS ISSUANCE OF WARRANT OF ARREST: 1. Search Warrant In search warrant the articles are seizable*** Not necessary that the person to be seized are included In the issuance of search warrant the procedure to be followed section 4 rule 112 REQUIRED PERSONAL DETERMINATION BY THE JUDGE OF THE EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE. 2. WARRANT OF ARREST In warrant of arrest crime has been committed and the person to arrested committed it A person must be indicated, because the function of the warrant of arrest is to arrest not to search. Governed by section 6 rule 112 IT ONLY REQUIRES THE EXCLUSIVE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE JUDGE TO SATISFY HIMSELF THE EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE, HE IS NOT REQUIRED TO PERSONALLY EXAMINE THE COMPLAINANT AND THE WITNESSES. *to avoid duplication of work by the prosecutor and the judge

is this a case of inflagrante delicto/caught in the act? No, because they will not know if it is really marijuana, unless and until they will enter the house, if not for the information that they got, they will not that there a marijuana inside the house. PEOPLE VS KIMURA: the accuse who escaped before he was arrested was seen in a restaurant and was finally arrested , is this considered inflgrante delicto , no because 2 days has passed and here he was just eating, so there is no case of committing an offense, in the presence of the police officer.

policemen with personal knowledge of the death of the victim and the fact of the crime they could lawfully arrest the accused. If they will postpone the arrest, the way for securing of a warrant, the accused would have fled like what his 2 companions did, so actually that is one of the valid reasons for allowing a valid arrest., to prevent the accused from escaping, just because there are no time for securing a warrant of arrest. PEOPLE VS MANLULU Narcom agent was killed by his drinking partners, he was killed around 1 am, police came investigating and then the accused was arrested 7 pm without a warrant is this covered under this requisite? The SC said no 19 hours has passed, and it is not under the term a crime has just been committed. PEOPLE VS OLIVARES: the body of the victim was found on December 26 after investigation they went to the house of the accused, two days after. So on December 28 the accuse was invited, because the evidence would point to the accused as the one who committed the offense, and at the police station the accused made a confession and so he was arrested , was the arrest valid? The SC noted that the policemen instead of arresting the accused, the latter was just invited the accused. That is why the arrest was invalid. What should the police officer do? File a case and apply for a warrant of arrest. PEOPLE VS DEL ROSARIO Robbery by snatching a bag of a woman, the woman was killed, so the accused boarded a tricycle at 6 pm, another driver recognized the accused and reported it to the police, so they made investigations, that happened around 6 am, the accused were arrested before lunch the other day, is it valid under this requisite? The SC said no, the crime was committed 19 hours ago. PEOPLE VS POSADAS Rumble between fraternities, so the rumble happened, the arrest was made 4 days after, it cannot be committed under the term has just been committed. WHAT WILL BE THE RULE NOW TO SAY THE CRIME HAS JUST BEEN COMMITTED? When the police officer will have no time to secure a warrant of arrest, because that is the essence of the rule, the police is allowed to arrest, it is because of the lack of time, so if they have no time to obtain or secure the warrant of arrest, then that will covered by HAS JUST BEEN COMMITTED. 2. THE ARRESTING PERSON HAS PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF FACTS INDICATING THAT THE PERSON TO BE ARRESTED HAS JUST COMMITTED IT.


When an offense have just been committed and has probable cause to believe that based on the personal knowledge of facts and circumstance, that the person has committed it, hot pursuit cases -the police officer has actually seen and heard it, indicating that the person to be arrested was committing or was about to commit an offense, regarding what the officer sees he must be in addition know that the person performed some overt acts, implicating the commission of the crime -when an offense has just been committed, and he has a probable cause to believe base on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances, that the person to be arrested has committed it, so in this case unlike un inflagrante delicto the police had missed the commission of the offense, hindi nya nakita, but the police officer or the arresting officer has personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person to be arrested has actually committed it. REQUISITES: 1. AN OFFENSE COMMITTED HAS JUST BEEN

-if you were rape today and you will report it on Wednesday, because nagbaha bukas, and when you report it, the police officer immediately go to the accused house and arrest him without a warrant would that be under this requisite? No it will not be covered under this, -so what do you mean by has just been committed PEOPLE VS GERENTE: here the victim was killed around 2 PM, so hours after, the police came because of the report, now the police went to the hospital and saw the victim died, they went to the scene of the crime and saw the fence with blood all over it, they ask around and everybody is pointing to the accused as one of the 3 perpetrators of the crime, so based on this investigations and information that they gathered and the fact that they saw the victim died, they went to the house of the accused, and there he was arrested, the accused was arrested around 5 pm, is this covered by the term has just been committed?, the SC said yes kakatapos lang, so the SC said under this circumstances, the

PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE-in arrest without a warrant this must be base on probable cause, there is a reasonable ground of suspicion. In other words if you are a police officer, someone calls you Mamang Pulis!

Mamang Pulis! Si Mr. Yap ninakaw ung bag ng ale, would you now have the authority to arrest him without a warrant? Based on that information would there be a probable cause? Or reasonable suspicion that he committed the offense? Malay mo kalaban lang pla ni Mr. Yap gusto sya ipahuli! -it is based on facts, facts based on circumstances sufficiently strong in themselves to create the probable cause of guilt of the person to be arrested, so reasonable suspicion founded from probable cause coupled with good faith. PEOPLE VS DORIA: this is a buy bust operation Doria was selling drugs, when he was handed the money he went out to get the marijuana, now when he came back Doria was arrested, when interrogated, he was ask where was the money? Doria said that it was with Nenith, so the police officer, went to the house of Nenith, called out Nenith and arrested Nenith. Is this an inflagrante case? No. the crime has just been committed? Pwede but does the police officer have personal knowledge that Nineth committed the offense? Take note was the information gathered by the police that Doria gave the money to Nenith? It might be that the money was given to Nenith with or without the consent of Nenith.In this case there was no reasonable suspicion that Nenith committed an offense. The facts that they is only that Nenith have the money but it does not in anyway is an act under the requisite committing an offense. CUDIA VS CA: there was a holdup, police received a radio call, here the victims meet up with the police, the victims identified and described te accused, since the accussed were no longer there, they were asked to board the police car and they look fo the accussed, then later two men came walking, which whom the victims identified the culprits, one of the two attempted tp pull something from his waist, the policemen stopped him, and arrested him is this valid? Now personal knowledge, do they have personal knowledge? In this case there was initial reports, meet up with complainants etc. in this case the SC said there was personal knowledge. PEOPLE VS VINALON: Robbery on board a bus, during the robbery the policeman died, two passengers were injured and 2 of the robbers were also injured, so those injured were taken to the hospital, the passengers meet up with the police who responded the report and they went to the hospital that passengers pointed to the accused ung isang injured doon, when there were frisk, found within their possession are bags, wallets. Etc., that they took, di man lang nila tinago muna nagpahospital pasila so they were arrested, was the arrest valid? A crime has just been committed? Yes! Do the police officer of personal knowledge indicating that the accused committed the offense? Yes! The SC said the personal knowledge of the police officer is based on the information given by the victims KUNG UNG BIKTIMA NA MISMO ANG NAGSABE THEN THAT WOULD BE COVERED OF THE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE POLICE OFFICER. PEOPLE VS CUBCUBIN: a person was shoot and the police sent the team to

investigate, they saw the victim in his tricycle along the road the police officer ask around they came up with this waitress and a tricycle driver, they asked them who was the last person last seen with the victim, both pointed to the accused, so they went to the house of the accused and then ask his involvement, of course the accused denied his involvement, but when they went inside the house, they saw a t-shirt stained with blood, and when they pick-up the tshirt there were two bullets. They arrested the accused without a warrant, is the arrest valid? A crime has just been committed? Yes! In his presence an offense was committed? No. the arresting person has personal knowledge? No, the knowledge came from witnesses, witnesses will said that he is the last person seen with the victim, not that this person killed the victim, therefore the facts do not form reasonable suspicion KULANG! So in this case the arrest of the accused was invalid, anu ang dapat gawin ng police? They have witness, and they already saw the blooded t-shirt, but they cannot take it because they don’t have search warrant, the policemen should obtained a search warrant or a warrant of arrest. OBTAINING A WARRANT OF ARREST: REVIEW File a case and then preliminary investigation and then information and then approval of the judge and they can already secure the warrant of arrest. c. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from penal establishment or in cases when is serving final judgment in short when a person is a prisoner who escaped from prison. If a person lawfully arrested escapes, any person may immediately pursue without a warrant, anytime, anywhere within the Philippines.


PART 3 WARRANTLESS SEARCHED AND SEIZURES SEARCH INCIDENT TO A VALID ARREST The rule is an officer making an arrest may take from the person being arrested any money or property found upon his person which was use in the commission of the crime of was the proof of the crime and evidence for the trial of the case. BAKIT PWEDE MUNG ISEARCH UNG INARREST MO? 1. To protect the arresting officer for possible physical harm that the arrested person may do to the arresting officer, so you search for concealed weapons To prevent destruction of evidence or anything that may be used during trial.


But it should not be beyond the reason or the purpose. REQUIRMENTS: 1. The arrest itself must be valid If you are asked the question of whether or not this is a search incident to a valid arrest, the first matter that you will discuss is whether or not the arrest was valid.


The search must be made at the time of the arrest or immediately thereafter. Why? Go back to the purpose, the purpose is just to protect the arresting officer and prevent destruction of evidence.

the immediate control of the accused include the car kasi may driver. But under the circumstances also he took the shabu from the car, so even under these circumstances alone will permit policemen can search the car. PEOPLE VS TIU WON CHUNG: here there is a search warrant the search warrant is for the police officers to search the apartment, but when they executed the search warrant, they seized shabu from the apartment, because of that they arrested the accused, now after the arrest, they also searched the car so according to them the search in the latter instance, is a search incident to a valid arrest, because the search warrant, particularly, supposedly, describes the place to be searched, and the description is only the inside portion of the apartment, they went beyond. Is it now a valid search without warrant incident to a valid arrest? The arrest was valid, they made an arrest after they obtain the shabu, so a crime has just been committed, now was the search inside the car valid? No. why? Because the car is already beyond the controlled premises of the accused, there is no need for the protection of the police officers and destruction of evidence because the car is not in the control of the accused anymore. VALEROSO VS CA: The accused here was found inside the boarding house of his children, there was a warrant of arrest and the police officers were able to get inside the house, when they saw the accused, the pulled him out of the room, tied him and the police officers went inside the room searched they found unlicensed firearm, was the search valid? The firearm according to the police officer could be use against them, but the firearms was actually seized from a cabinet, so the SC said, a gun inside a drawer or a table in front of the accused is as dangerous as the a gun in the pocket of the accused. But in this case the unlicensed firearm was taken inside a cabinet inside another room, so in this case it can no longer be considered as premises within the immediate control of the accused. The search and seizures of these firearms were invalid. PART 4 CONSENTED SEARCH If there is a consent to the search and seizure, there is no need for a warrant, now to constitute a waiver of this constitutional right, it must appear first that the right exist, or the person involve have knowledge about that right and that the person have actual intentions to do so,, thus if a person consents to a warrantless search and seizure, he KNOWINGLY, INTELLIGENTLY AND VOLUNTARILY do so, The consent must be, unequivocal, specific and, intelligently given. VALDEZ VS PEOPLE: the consent must be uncontaminated, and in jures or coercion, now whether or not there is consent, it is a case to case basis and that it must be shown by clear and convincing evidence, so the court will look at the instances and the voluntariness and the way that the consent is given will be based on the circumstances. The SC said based on the circumstances and character of the person giving the consent these are the following basis : 1. the person giving the consent or the defendant 2. Whether he is on a public or a secured place when he gave the consent 3. Whether you passively search or you just look on 4. His education or intelligence 5. Is it in accordance with police procedures 6. The person believed that there will be no incriminating evidence found 7. The nature of the police questioning 8. The environment which the questioning took place 9. The state of the person consenting. Now based on this mere failure to resist does not constitute an implied waiver of constitutional right. (READ THE VALDEZ CASE, FOR A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF THE FOLLOWING REQUISITES) PEOPLE VS MONTILLA: Now in this case there was information by a source that the accused will arrive somewhere, the following day, somewhere in DASMA the agent pinpointed to the accused when the later came out of a jeepney, taken from his travelling bag , during the search


The search must be limited on the person arrested So limited lang sa person, or premises under his immediate control, you can search the person but you can extend that to immediate premises within his immediate control (the area which he might gain possession of a weapon) or destructible evidence.


The search is limited to dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense, proceeds or fruits of the crime or any evidence which may used as proof during trial. For example you are arresting a person for the violation of the dangerous drugs act (MARIJUANA, SHABU, PARAPHERNELIA), can you take a picture to prove adultery? No. if in that case, if there is a case, you can apply for a search warrant pero kung iba hindi pwede, only to those acts punishable under the dangerous drugs act.

PEOPLE VS CHUA: the accused based on an information is going to a motel and will be delivering shabu, he went the place, when the accused arrived, he was seen carrying a zesto box, sealed zesto box, siguro ata ung police, they already called an arrest, arrested him, asked him to open the box and inside were around 2 kilos of shabu and some bullets for a firearm. Is the search of this box without a warrant valid? Is the arrest valid? Is this inflagrante case? No the person that they saw is a person carrying a box and walking and that’s it, the person was not committing overt acts constituting an offense. The arrest being invalid, the search is also invalid, inadmissible evidence. PEOPLE VS SARAP: the police made an arrest, they arrested three women, when they interrogated them they came out with the information that this so and so Sarap is the supplier of the marijuana and she will be arriving two days after, on that day the police waited for the accused then they saw the accused in the alley near her house, while walking they arrested the accused, believing that they already have a positive identification of the accused. Is the arrest valid? No. why? The accused was just walking, but maam there is information that she is the supplier. THE POLICEMEN SHOULD HAVE SECURED A WARRANT OF ARREST AFTER THE INFORMATIONS GIVEN BY THE ARRESTED WOMEN! PEOPLE VS CHE CHUN TING: ay ung bossing ko si mr so and so, so they went to the apartment of the accused towards his car, then the policemen approached the accused, upon hearing his name from the person they arrested earlier, they asked him to open things and there they found shabu, almost 30 kilos, obtained without a search warrant, obtained after an arrest that is invalid. So what happens to the shabu, goodbye  PEOPLE VS ANG CHONG KIT: buy bust operation again a Chinese National; the transaction was consummated in a parking lot. The accused came in his car with a driver, so after the buy bust transaction, so exchange na then he was arrested, was it a valid arrest? Now they search the accused but they searched not only the person of the accused, but also the car that was parked, they ask the person to open the car and they secured some items from the compartment question? Is the search in the car valid? Is it still within the premises within the immediate control of the accused? Ordinarily it is not, but under the circumstance take note that the accused arrived with a driver, and it is safe to presume by the officers that the driver is under the control of the accused. So in this case the SC said the premises within

without a warrant are marijuanas, was the warrantless search valid? It would not be a valid warrantless arrest, so it cannot fall to a valid warrantless arrest because it cannot fall into inflagrante delicto case or hot pursuit case, so to justify the search, the police said this is a consented search because the accused apparently consented to the search of the bag, the SC said yes, the details may not be enough to issue a search warrant but they can actually conduct a warrantless search, the agents knows the exact place and time, the search must be incident to a lawful arrest. I don’t like the decision of the SC here this is against what we are studying. THE RIGHT PROCEDURE IS WHAT IS ENUMERATED IN VALDEZ VS PEOPLE PEOPLE VS COMPACION: here it is also based on a tip given by an informant to a policeman, they made a surveillance of the residence of the accused, and there they saw marijuana planted in the backyard of the accused, actually tried to apply for a warrant, but they cannot wait any longer so they conducted a seizure at dawn, as if the Marijuana Plant will be remove anytime soon, so they conducted a search and seizure without a warrant, they asked for the accused to open the gate, asked him to let them in, and the accused did and it is even the accused that lead them to the place where the marijuana was planted, so was it a consented search ? The SC said under the circumstances, where the accused was merely silent, it does not mean that the accused consented to the search, the acts of the accused in allowing the police in his premises during the search will not be construed as voluntary submission or consent especially so when members of the raiding team, were numerous SINO PABA ANG HIHINDI DIBA? It is but a submission to the authority of the law a peaceful submission to a search and seizure is not a consented search, but merely obedience to the supremacy of law. This is a personal right so, only the person to whom the search was made can assert the right that has been violated. It cannot be given for him by another. PEOPLE VS ASIS: In this case the accused was a deaf mute, he was arrested for robbery with homicide, he was brought to his house, and there, was his wife and mother not knowing what was going on the sister of the victim and the team asked the wife of the accused to give the bag and the wife did without knowing that it contained the bloody short of the victim, is this a consented search? If it is a consented search, the consent must be given by the accused not by his wife. The right being personal one it cannot be given by other in behalf of him. VEROY VS LAYAGUE: here a house in skyline was suspected to be a safe house for rebels, the team went there, the Veroys are not there, the team even made a telephone call to the Veroys who are in Manila and the latter said ok if you think that there are rebels in our house take a look at our house pinapasok sila, now when they entered the house, they search not only the rooms but cabinets and drawers as well and even under the bed. So definitely you will not find a rebel inside a drawer, so what they found are firearms, guns and the likes. Would these firearms and ammunitions be admissible as connected to the consented search? The SC said the consent was only limited to search for rebels it cannot expand to searches of other objects, so that should be the scope of the search. Now under the circumstances the SC also noted that it is undeniable that the police officers had ample time to procure a search warrant but they did not. What they can do is to immediately go the court and apply for a search warrant. SEARCH OF EVIDENCE IN PLAINVIEW The plainview doctrine states that the law enforcer can make a search and seizure without a warrant, if he has a prior justification that the discovery within the plainview is inadvertent (hindi sinasadya). The illegality of the object is immediately apparent. So there are actually the requirements PEOPLE VS QUE MING KHA: here the police having an information that van with a particular plate passing by and that van contain a shabu, in response to that one followed the said van, but unfortunate the van met an accident, the van

stopped, the driver went out of the van, and attempted to bring a boy to the hospital, the police responded in the vehicular accident, although the van was tinted he was able to see sacks or packages containing something that is crystalline and since he knows that they are actually waiting for that particular van, there is big possibility that it is the shabu, so he look into the window of the van and there he saw the packages of shabu, he search and seize the shabu. Is the shabu admissible in evidence? Or is the search valid? Under this circumstances there was prior justification for the police officer to be there, what is the justification? Vehicular accident, and then he saw this, there is prior justification , thus this is under the Plainview Doctrine. He has the right to be in that position, and to have that view because of the vehicular accident. PEOPLE VS ELAMPARO: this is a very tugma na example buy bust operation, they arrested the accused the accused was able to escape, he was able to escaped, so hinabol ng police, now this person entered the house of another , he entered that house because it was hot pursuit case the police also run after the accused who escaped. When he entered the house, timing the owner/accused here was seen repacking marijuana, so this is actually a classic case of plainview doctrine, ndi mu sinasadya diba dumaan ka, so the marijuana is admissible, it is a valid plainview searched. PEOPLE VS PASUDAG: the policeman here was urinating at a fence now he happen to see a garden, and there is kamote and corn** and laong with this plants are marijuana plants, so umihi sya, he saw this marijuana plants and reported it to his superior, the superior sent out the team, saanang mali? They should get a search warrant! He sent out a team, went straight to the house and ask accused to bring him to the backyard. In the first place there was no prior justification to be there, in fact he was violating an ordinance umiihi sya. The officer must come into the evidence inadvertently, meaning it is not deliberately sought, in Plainview it must inadvertent and the officer must not be poking around, it must be open to the hand and the eye of the officer, hindi ung hahanapin pa. PEOPLE VS VALDEZ: the police was informed of a marijuana plantation n, now a police team was sent the following day, early morning, accompanied by the informer, they have to make a 3 hour uphill trek and when they reach the place, they saw the accused in his nipa hut, and they were still looking for the exact place the marijuana was planted, would you say that the marijuana was inadvertently discovered? In this case what they did was they went there precisely to look for the marijuana plant. Not a case of inadvertence. The marijuana plant here was deliberately sought. The evidence of illegality should be immediately apparent; here they have to look for the marijuana. PEOPLE VS DORIA: they have to look into the newspaper used as a wrap for the shabu the evidence of illegality is not immediately apparent PEOPLE VS SALANGUIT: there was a search warrant here for the undetermined amount of shabu and drug paraphernalia, now during the search however, in addition to the shabu the police found 2____ marijuana leaves. If there is search warrant, the search is limited only to the objects or things describe in the warrant, can the police now search and seized other objects? The police here inadvertently discovered the marijuana is it under the plainview doctrine? The SC said they cannot take the marijuana, because the police knew that the shabu was in the cabinet, it is reasonable to assume that they found it first and having found it they have no reason to be there, they should leave, but the problem here is that it is just based on an assumption. According to Ma’am: “it should be admissible because first they have the legal reason to be there, they have search warrant, and when they found the marijuana it is inadvertent, the marijuana should be admissible.” REVALDO VS PEOPLE: here there is a mere information that the accused is in possession of _____ without necessary documents and then when the police went to the place without a warrant, they saw the lumber___ around, they seized and search the place, I have a problem, it must be

apparent sabe nya I’m using that to build my house what if it’s true? READ THE CASE AND SEE FOR YOURSELF. STOP AND FRISK DOCTRINE This doctrine states that when a police officer observes a conduct which leads him to reasonably conclude that, in the light of his experience that criminal activity is going on and that the accused maybe armed or is dangerous, and while investigating, he introduce himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, for his own or other’s safety, he can be justified in conducting a limited search in the person of the accused. TERRY VS OHIO: the police officer saw two persons walking in front of a store, repeatedly, this arose the suspicion of the officer, because when they returned to their original spot they apparently talked to a third person. In the light of his experience he has reasonable basis to suspect that a criminal activity is going on, so as far as his experience would say the behavior of the man, is spicing? Wahahah up the store with the intention to rob it, so he approach the three men and he asked questions, he identified himself as policeman, in an attempt to somehow remove the doubt, but after few questions he received fumbled?? Wahah answers. And then he grabbed one of them, ala James Bond, he found concealed weapon to the three accused during the trial of course doctrine. The police officer has reasonable conclude in the light of his experience that criminal activity is going on, the police officer would identify himself, and then he would ask initial questions and if he is not satisfied and if there is a suspicion on his part that there are concealed weapon he can conduct limited search in the person of the accused. THE SEARCH COMES FIRST THEN ARREST HIM AFTER. MANILILI VS CA: the policemen infront of Calaocan Cemetery came across with a man with red eyes and walking like parang lasing o sabog, should the policemen approach the person knowing that in that place there are drug addicts, so the stop the person frisk him, they ask him actually to disclose what was in his wallet, so in his wallet is a pack of marijuana, so in this case the SC said this fall under the stop and frisk doctrine. POSADAS VS CA: so here the accused was roaming along Magallanes St., now there was a surveillance team to spot the place they saw this petitioner carrying a bag, and is acting suspiciously and this is were the argument would come in, what do you mean by acting suspiciously? Under the circumstances that time na magulo ung Davao everybody might be acting suspiciously, the policemen approach him made initial question, the petitioner attempted to flee, when he was arrested or captured, his bag was inspected and found were several firearms. So during the appeal the SOLGEN argues it is a search incident to a valid arrest because at the time of the arrest he was committing an offense, that is carrying illegal weapons, but the SC said there has to be overt acts showing a criminal activity but In the case there is non, it cannot fall under valid search incident to a valid arrest. Observe the search came first because he was asked to disclose his possession, so this is an instance of stop and frisk situation, and the police acted legitimately under this doctrine. PEOPLE VS MENGOTE: there was a report by telephone call that there are suspicious looking person in Tondo, Manila, so police officers were dispatched to that place, in the place they saw this 3 suspicious looking guys, one of the three is holding his abdomen, so because of that they stop and frisk, the SC said there is nothing wrong with holding your abdomen. They have just arrived from a jeepney so how can they be acting suspiciously? This is not a valid warrantless search? PEOPLE VS CHUA HO SAN: there was a report that speedboat would be landing? Along the coastline, there was report of illegal smuggling, when it land, there was an unfamiliar man carrying a bag, so hw was accosted, he change direction, he tried to run, and when he was arrested it turned out that he was a Taiwanese, who spoke no enlish, and he was carrying a bag, containing kilos of shabu, the SC said it is not a valid warrantless search and seizure case, although

the boat was unfamiliar, the SC said there is no probable cause to suspect anyone coming from it, According to ma’am “I think the place alone should be enough to have a reasonable search to the person, besides it turned out that he have no visa, according to SC even if he has no visa it is still not a valid warrantless***. READ ESQUILLO VS PEOPLE-Ma’am Gu.. PART 5 Ok last time we were talking about incidents of valid(?) searches without warrants. Can you tell me what the examples are? Searches incident to valid arrest – search that is consented or consented search, search of evidence in plain view, and stop and frisk. So, let’s move on.

Search of a Moving Vehicle. Now, as we study this type of exception, forget everything we learned about valid searches without a warrant. When it comes to searches with moving vehicles, the SC takes a more liberal approach. Why? Because a moving vehicle, the fact that it is moving, could be easily removed from jurisdiction. In other words, there is no instance wherein the police officer could secure a search warrant for that purpose, because the object is moving. It could be readily and easily taken out of the jurisdiction of the police. Thus, as I’ve said, the SC takes a more liberal approach. Now, ordinarily, a police officer is not authorised to flag down any vehicle just for the purpose of a search. Di ba? Now, what is required therefore is he must have, before the search, he must have a probable cause to conduct a search/an extensive search, because what you should know about searches in vehicles, is that it is just part of a standard procedure. The police officer can only do visual search – limited visual search. When can a police conduct an extensive search? There must be probable cause to do so. What do you mean by probable cause? Facts and circumstances which would give him that suspicion that a crime is being committed by the occupant or the goods or effects of the crime can be found inside the vehicle. Asuncion v CA, here there was an ??? campaign against illegal drugs in the city of Malabon… ordered this man to watch out for a certain Vic Vargas, hindi yung artista. Vic Vargas happens to be in the watch list of the police among the drug dealers. So while patrolling, there was an informant, and the informant said that a particular vehicle would pass by, and on-board of which is Vic Vargas; more importantly, the vehicle would be transporting shabu. Now the police found this vehicle, and then the police flagged down the vehicle. In course of the search thereafter, the police found a small quantity of shabu beneath the driver’s seat. This is a classic example of a search of a moving vehicle. What’s the probable cause? … information of the informant. Another probable cause: they already know Vic Vargas as one of suspected drug dealers. Vic Vargas was already in the watch list of the police, so they know whom to accost. They even had information of the area where he is usually … his trade, and they saw this vehicle in this area. So, here there is probable cause to flag down the vehicle and then conduct an intensive(?) search. This is a valid search without a warrant because the search is made within a moving vehicle. What’s the purpose? To avoid … by the culprit… moving vehicle could be easily removed from the jurisdiction of the police. People v Valdez. In this case, the police man was just waiting for a ride. Then an informant approached him. The informant said ‘… carrying a green bag, would be passing by on board a bus. He will be transporting marijuana. Acting on this information, the police flagged down buses. Now, nakaflag siya ng two buses. On the second bus, he found this thin Ilokano person carrying a green bag. Before I go on, what’s the description? Thin Ilokano person with green bag. Now remove the Ilokano person, because how would you know that the person is Ilokano. Kung Bul-anon pwede pa – Sano (when you say ‘Sano!’ mulingi man na, kung Bisaya ‘Bai!’) Now, how would you identify a person? So you remove the description. Thin person. Green bag. You didn’t even know if the person is

male or female, but thin person with a green bag would be riding a bus. Now, is that information sufficient? Would that now constitute probable cause? Actually, no, di ba, as far as what you have learned. But in this case, the SC said that the search was valid. The police acted on an on the spot information. He had to act quickly, thus, the search was valid. My only problem with that finding is that what if naka-10 na siya ng buses, ilang thin persons na ang sinearch niya? Ilang thin persons with green bag? Madali lang naming makahanap ng green bag. ‘Yung mga backpack, ‘di ba? What if ‘no you already did a search among several thin persons na Ilokano or not carrying green bags, would this person is now … to question his act? I’m sure meron. People v Bagista, … the informant said that a certain woman with curly hair around 5’2 or 5’3 in height would be transporting marijuana from upnorth – so probably from Baguio, Ilokos. Based on this information, the police established a checkpoint, and what they did is to flag down not only public buses or public transportation, but they also flag down big cars (private vehicles). So they flag down both public and private vehicles. Now finally, they chanced upon this bus, and they found this woman with naturally curly hair (I don’t know if the police can define it as naturally curly). And so, they found this woman who fitted in the description, they asked her to open her bag, and inside the bag were some kilos of marijuana. The SC said that the search valid. There was probable cause for the police to flag down the vehicles – both public and private. There was probable cause for the police to search this woman. Now read the dissenting opinion of Justice Padilla. Justice Padilla said ‘If indeed it was true that they have this information… probable cause… it must be before the search. If they have this information earlier, they would not have searched all of the passengers inside the bus regardless if he is a man or a woman, which is what they need(?). They would not also have searched all of the bags found inside the bus, which is what they did. What happened is that they conducted a fishing expedition until they found this person carrying marijuana and then they have arranged the facts to say that a curly haired woman would be carrying marijuana. Now, based on these to decisions, Valdez and Bagista, I’m not saying that the SC is wrong, but what I’m saying or what I’m asking from you is to be critical about the decisions of the SC. You go to the basics: what are the established principles, the law, what is the constitutional provision and go from there. That is also applicable in all your other subjects, cases assigned, be critical of the decision of the SC. in this case ‘no what did we learn? Kulang ang information. As a police officer would you have reasonable doubt to flag down every bus flag down every private vehicle, I don’t think so under the circumstances. People v Aruta, now this case is more like it. They have information that a certain ‘Aling Rosa’ would be arriving from Baguio, the following day, with a large volume of marijuana. Aling rosa. May name, may informant ready to point kung sino si Aling Rosa. So they deployed themselves on the streets of … Now they know that she’ll be on board a Victory Liner Bus. So when she alighted from the Victory Liner Bus, the informant pointed to her ‘siya si Aling Rosa’. Now the police went after her and then asked her to open her bag and there was marijuana inside. Saan sa mga exceptions that you have learned would this search be justified? Is this a search incident to a valid arrest? Can you justify it a search incident to a valid arrest? Why? In a valid arrest search, there must be an overt act that the accused is committing an offense. Here, alighting from the bus and walking does not show a crime is being committed. Is this a search of evidence in plainview(?) Of course not, because she has to open the bag. Now is this a search of a moving vehicle? No. Why? Because she was no longer on board the vehicle. Is this a consented search because she readily handed down the bag? You know the rules when it comes to consented search. It must be unequivocal, clear, voluntarily. In that case, when you see the policeman, anong gagawing mo? So, this just fall under any of the circumstances that are considered as exceptional, and this is more like it. Tama ‘to na decision. People v Gonzales – For me, this is the worst of the cases. … woman with long hair wearing maong pants with jacket, and RayBan sunglasses, with brand hindi Chanel, would be

transporting marijuana along the national hway … a black travelling bag, and she will be on board a trisikad. Not even a tricycle. Trisikad. To cut the story short, the SC said that the search was valid. It is a search of a moving vehicle, because the vehicle can be easily removed from the jurisdiction of the police People v Quebral – this is a good decision. Here, the police was informed that two men and a woman on board an ownertype jeep with a specific plate number; they have a specific target – two men and a woman on board a jeep, and that they would deliver shabu on the following day at the Petron gasoline station. So they have this information, this information, as far as the police are concerned, is probable cause enough. So they found this jeep, followed the jeep, until they arrived at the gasoline station. Nag-stake out sila. Until, finally another vehicle arrived, and then as the driver of this FX and the jeep talked, there was an exchange of envelope. So after that the police moved and then seized the envelope – turned out it contained marijuana and shabu. So is this a search of a moving vehicle? Yes. This is a good example. There is no probable cause to do an extensive search. Was there a sufficient time to secure a warrant? No. It was more or less an on the spot information. So, this is a valid search. It would have been impractical for the police to apply with the appropriate court for a search warrant since their immediate search was warranted(?). … could have gone away by the time the police could apply for the search warrant. So what are the common characteristics of all these cases? That they qualify as a search of a moving vehicle. First, reliable information is sufficient. Pwede ka lang may informant. Now that information must be coupled by other facts and circumstances like in this [Quebral] case, by handing of shabu. Now, second, the suspect is on board a vehicle. That’s why in the case of Aruta, she was not on board there was no search of a moving vehicle, but in the case of the trisikad, since she was on board the trisikad. Third, there’s a definite target, meaning that the accused or the suspect is sufficiently described, or the vehicle is sufficiently described. More important one is that lack of material time to secure a warrant. Now a police checkpoint… of a moving vehicle. Actually most searches of a moving vehicle happen during a police checkpoint. When it comes to searching vehicles, even if it is a police checkpoint, the police are only limited to visual search. The police cannot conduct and should not conduct extensive search, except only when there is probable cause. Probable causes are facts and circumstances that would lead the searching officer to believe, before the search, that either the motorist is a law offender or that they would find the evidence pertaining the commission of the crime in the vehicle to be searched. What would be a good example of a probable cause? Say for example the police is conducting a visual search and asking regular questions, and the driver or occupant is acting suspiciously, like they were getting fidgety – you ask a question they give you a different answer, that would be enough for the police officer to suspect that something is going on. Another example, you conduct a vehicle search, and in the process of doing so, you smell something that as far as your experience goes is marijuana, so in that case there is reasonable ground to believe that the crime is being committed, the motorist is a law offender, that would be probable cause. People v Vinecario –COMELEC gun ban. Police officers establish several checkpoints, and this case happened in Davao City particularly in Ulas. Now while manning the checkpoint, the police saw this motor vehicle where three men were on board, but they did not stop at the checkpoint, just passed through or passed by. The police had to blow his whistle to ask them to stop. They finally stopped and they were interviewed and one of them said that he is a military man – maybe with the hope of dissuading the officer to ask further questions, but the police asked him to procure an identification card which he failed to do so. Now the other one was carrying a backpack. When asked what’s inside the backpack, he said that it contains a mat (banig). But then he became fidgety and they passed around the bag – nagpasahanay na sila. So as a police officer, would you say that there is probable cause to conduct an extensive search?

Yes, because they acted suspiciously, they became fidgety, they gave out wrong answers. So the police actually suspected a bomb, and they searched inside the bag they found instead marijuana. So is the marijuana admissible in evidence? This is a good example of a search of a moving vehicle. Now, again, visual search. We observe this usually in Davao City. The police would flag down motors, ask the driver to step down and ask the driver to open compartment/trunk, and not only that, for the driver to show them the bag or whatever they’re carrying. Actually, that’s constitutionally questionable. Naghihintay lang sila ng someone to file a case, and so far wala pa. Aniag v COMELEC – Here, there is also COMELEC gun ban. Now, a Congressman to whom a gun was… ordered his driver to return the gun to the Batasang Pambansa Complex. So his driver took the gun placed it inside a bag and placed it inside the trunk of the car. Then he passed by the COMELEC checkpoint, the police asked him to open the trunk, and the police opened the bag themselves. In this instance, actually he was charged for the violation of the gun ban. In this instance would you say that there is probable cause to open the trunk? No. In fact the driver was very calm. There’s no way to say that he was acting suspicious. He was calm because he knows that he was not violating any law at that time. So in this case, they abused their authority. Again, limited to visual search. Enforcement of Customs Laws – So the search and seizure of the goods inspected… into the country by nature of customs laws is one of the exceptions. The constitutional provision that no search shall be made except of a warrant issued by a judge; so under your customs code it allows police authorities to enter, pass through, or search a land, enclosure, warehouse, store, or building that is not a dwelling house. Also to inspect search and examine any vessel or aircraft and any trunk package or any person on board, or to stop and search or examine any vehicle… of holding or conveying any … or prohibited article… contrary to law. Rieta v People – it was valid therefore for the officers who intercepted… and the guard in response to the report that… somewhere in the port area. They intercepted the truck and the car and they searched it and found… untaxed cigarettes. So this is enforcement of customs laws, the search without a warrant is valid. Salvador v People – Here, the search was conducted by the Philippine Air force – personnel of the Philippine Air force. The search was conducted within the premises of the NAIA to check on the reports of smuggling by certain PAL personnel. Now, while conducting surveillance, they saw these three persons boarding an airbus. When they alighted from the airbus, they observed that these three persons’ abdomens were already bulging, and they were pretty sure that these abdomens were not bulging because they ate something. So they searched these three persons, and they found imported watches amounting to one million pesos. So is the search valid or is there a need for them to secure a warrant? This is an enforcement of customs laws. Watches are dutiable goods they cannot be introduced to the Philippines without being… of taxes. Now, take note that this is the Philippine Air Force conducting police works; is that action valid? The SC said yes. They were given the authority because of this report of smuggling. They are doing this pursuant to customs laws. EXIGENCY People v d Gracia – there was a coup attempt against President Ramos, and there was active exchange of fires from the military men and from the rebels. This is a 3-day or 2-day ‘war’. The military tried to penetrate the Eurocar Office. The rebels were inside this building. Of course, they were shut upon kasi nandoon ‘yung mga rebels, but before that, they happen to see several fires and ammunitions inside. Now they plan to get inside and search further whatever they could take from there. So they retrieved these fires and ammunitions without a search warrant. Can the rebels complain that the search was made without a search warrant? The SC said this is an unusual circumstance. Because of the urgency and the exigency of the situation, there is no need for the state or the

military to secure a search warrant; because what you have here is actual and active firing between military and the rebels. It would be impractical to require the military to secure a search warrant. Because of the urgency and the exigency of the situation, there is no need to secure a search warrant. Further, it is a fact that the courts during that time are also closed. Exigency up to this point… would mean that the very existence of the government is in the line. So take note here (de Gracia case) walang courts; delikado sa safety ng government. Can this be applied in the case of calamity? It’s a case-to-case basis, but if you are critical enough you can apply this case to a calamity. For example, there is active calamity tapos there is active looting and then you know where the looters would take the objects. Would you be required to secure a search warrant? Perhaps or perhaps not. Again, case-to-case basis. Others: Airport and Jail Security – Now when it comes to security procedures in airports and jail, the person or persons… in the search and seizure clause by exposure of their persons or property to the public in a manner reflecting the lack of subjective expectation of privacy. Your person or your property is exposed to the public in a manner reflecting the lack of subjective expectation o privacy. Which expectation is society prepared to recognise as reasonable? Now what are the searches conducted in the airport as a matter of standard procedure; and I’m sure you have been subjected to searches. You pass through an x-ray machine, your bags are passed on x-ray machine, you are frisked. Was there an instance that you would say that unreasonable ito? Would you say that these kinds or searches are unreasonable? So what we have here, it is the society itself that accepts this minimal intrusion to be reasonable. Why? The consideration is safety – safety of the passengers, or the crew, or whatever. It’s more on safety considerations. So again, it is the society which accepts these kinds of intrusion as reasonable given the gravity of consideration that is safety. You can’t say na pagpasok mo sa x-ray machine you say ‘I will not pass through there, because I have the right to privacy’. Reasonable reduced expectation of privacy. People v Johnson – this former Filipino citizen… in Manila, gate 16 departure area, was frisked by a lady frisker, who felt something hard(!) – lalake diay… the lady frisker felt something hard on her abdominal area, because of this she was asked to go to the ladies’ comfort room and asked to strip down. What was found in there inserted in her girdle were some packets of shabu around half kilo. Can she invoke violation of Sec 2 and 3? Again, ‘yun na ‘yung sinasabi ko na reasonable reduced expectation of privacy.

So there is still question that some searches are reasonable given the… gravity of the safety involved and reduced privacy expectations associated with it. In addition to that reasoning for allowing searches inside airports in People v Canton – They frisked this woman, something hard bulge from her abdominal area, when she was asked to strip down, hindi lang half kilo, one kilo of shabu. Kulang siya ng imagination, sana sa bra nlng. The same thing happened. Now the SC said other than that reasoning yung sa People v Johnson; the SC there is in fact a law governing and allowing this search. Now that is R.A. 6235. There is a section there that provides that Every ticket issued to a passenger by the airline or air carrier concerned shall contain among others the following condition printed thereon: "Holder hereof and his hand-carried luggage(s) are subject to search for, and seizure of, prohibited materials or substances. Holder refusing to be searched shall not be allowed to board the aircraft,” so what you have here: when you are issued a ticket, there is already an agreement to abide by the rules of the aircraft. What we have therefore is a contract between the aircraft and the passenger. This provision constitutes that contract. So apart from the reasoning in P v Johnson, in P v Canton there is in fact an agreement or the person has already agreed to be searched and the illegal substances be seized. Holder refusing to be searched shall not be allowed to board the aircraft.

Jail Security People v Conde – The accused here was detained as a suspect in a robbery with homicide. Now one day, he was visited by his wife. Before the wife was allowed to…, her bag was checked. Inside the bag, the prison officer found the knife allegedly used to kill the victim dun sa homicide case. Now can this knife be used as evidence against that prisoner inside? In other words, is the search valid? The reasoning with airport security, jail security procedure, so reduced expectancy of privacy… consideration of the safety not only of the personnel inside but also of the prisoners inside. So the search was found to be in order, to search was part of the police standard operating procedure, and is part of the precautionary measures by the police to safeguard the safety of the detainees as well as the over-all security of the jail premises. Imagine nalang if you can invoke Sec 2 and then searches of any articles brought inside… would not be allowed, ang yayaman ng mga prisoners ngayon, di ba? Search by Private Persons People v Marti - …that it was the courier who opened the package, and when he saw the illegal substance… for further investigation. The SC said that that search was a search by a private person, and in the absence of government interference, the ??? is guaranteed by the constitution cannot be invoked against the state. So this constitutional right against ??? search and seizure refers to ??? of one’s persons whether citizen ??? from interference by the government, so included is which his residence, his papers, his personal possessions. The Bill of Rights embodied in the constitution is not meant to be invoked against private individuals. People v Bongcawaran – the accused here was on board MV Super Ferry, so a ship, public transport. Now inside the ship, there were complaints of theft of jewellery, which is common kung sumakay ka ng public transport. Because of this complaint, the security personnel of that vessel conducted searches on the baggage of the passengers. Now when they open the baggage of the accused, they did not find the jewellery, but they found shabu. Could that shabu be admissible in evidence? The security personnel, actually, when they found the shabu, called the Phil Coast Guard. The Phil Coast Guard arrested the accused. Did the Phil Coast Guard acted properly? Was the search valid? Now, there was an argument that the security personnel acted as agents of the state. Is that argument valid? No. The security is and believed to be the agents of the vessel which is a private entity. There is no way that they can be the agents of the state. Now the Phil Coast Guard can validly arrest him, and then hereafter the evidence presented against the accused, because there was no constitutional right violated. People v Mendoza – this is a case of parricide. Husband killed his wife. So the father of the deceased went to the house of the husband to secure the belongings of his daughter. In the process of taking the properties of his daughter, he also was able to get certain documents such as he ??? order and the memorandum receipt for a .38 calibre revolver issued in favour of the accused. These documents were used as evidence against the accused. Can this evidence be admissible? Can the police use this as evidence against the accused? Remember that the police took these documents from the father of the deceased, and not from the accused or house of the accused. Therefore, who conducted the search and seizure? The father. Therefore, the accused cannot claim the violation of his constitutional right against the father. Recall, anong maku-complain natin sa father? Was there a right violated? Now if there was any, that would be governed by Civil Law. Individual against individual, Civil Laws. Individual against violation by the state, Constitutional Law. Individual against the State, Criminal Law. PART 6 Without proof it took judicial notice of the fact that… rebels started basing in urban areas, so in order to flush-out these alleged criminals, the Supreme Court said that it was proper for the military to establish the checkpoint. Now, the problem on the decision is that it declared that the checkpoint

was valid without looking at the circumstances, and even one of the justice said that he had experienced one of the checkpoints. Was the Philippines under Martial Law that time? No Martial law does not suspend the operation or effectivity of the constitution. So in this case there is no martial law, but there is just this fact of criminal activities in urban areas such as in the case Valenzuela, the Supreme Court said that… it clarified that it was not declaring that all checkpoints are legal, only that check points on these particular area is valid, and checkpoints per se is not illegal. So the motion for reconsideration, the Supreme Court enumerated requirements for the checkpoint which was actually the prayer of the petitioners in the first case… at least it would require the military to make some issuances with regards to what would be the proceedings or what would be observed when it comes to establishing checkpoints. So that was only declared in the motion for reconsideration, thus to declare valid are checkpoints… should involve a brief detention of travellers, during which travellers are required to answer a brief question. Was this what happened in Valenzuela? Actually, there were reports that the military were committing ‘mangotong’ ‘kotong’ ay hindi! Checkpoints become centres or areas where the military to commit these crimes against individuals. Other than that, there was this incident that there was this principal employees that got ???in cold blood, because he refused to the checkpoint.

So checkpoint must be for brief detention for travellers, and the traveller can only be required to answer a question or two. Second, the vehicle… searched… or their occupant’s subject… inspection of the vehicle is only limited to visual search. Finally, based on US declaration or jurisprudence, the location of these checkpoints is fixed and is not chosen by the officers in the field but by the officers responsible for making over-all decisions as to the most effective location of limited enforcement of resources. This is also in relation to the fact that checkpoints could also affect the flow of the traffic. Besides, the reason of the SC is it is inconvenient for the travellers to know where the checkpoint is. They can easily escape or avoid checkpoints. It must be fixed and the reason of the place of the checkpoint must be made by the officials making overall decisions and not whimsically or capriciously by officers in the field. Now, read the dissenting opinions, however. In the dissenting opinions of Justice Cruz and Justice Sarmiento, they do not accept the reasoning of the SC, because search and seizures must be made pursuant to the warrant, and checkpoints in these places would authorise the military and the police to conduct further searches. As to the ???extensive search can only be done when there is probable cause to believe that the motorist is committing a crime. Now probable cause, example is in the case of People vs ???, ayawnilangidiscloseito because there seems to be a ??? declaration that the ??? must yield the demands of national security, and this ignores the fact that the Bill of Rights was intended precisely to limit the authority of the state even if this authority is ascertained on national security. The more that the national security is in the balance, the more that the individual’s rights should be protected—that’s their point. It doesn’t mean that since military and the police failed in the law-enforcement area, kasidumami daw yungmga rebels, dumami daw angmga firearms and illegal trade, it’s the freedom(?) of the military and the police and then because of that failure(?) the individual’s rights could suffer, so that is the point of Justice Cruz and Justice Sarmiento. So that is why, when it comes to checkpoints, remember the requirements: brief momentary detention, limited visual search and takes place.

Case: People v Exala- so the issue of probable cause is actually factual, so it’s up to you now whether you are for the accused or for the State to prove this factual circumstance that there is probable cause. How can you say that a person is acting suspiciously? Like for one instance, I for one experienced it. It was not even a regular checkpoint, regular ba ‘yun?,bsta there was this police dragging(?) down the taxi that we were on. Now, we have this big attaché case, because we had a hearing from out of town, then the police asked us to open the bag, of course bagong lawyer di ba? Constitutional. He said, “Open it. Nganomagisog-isog man ka diha?” and then we were shouted upon, then he called his superior who shouted even louder than his inferior officer, so what can you do? If it goes to court, how can you prove that you have not acted suspiciously, or if the judge would interpret your act as having acted suspiciously? So again, you have the principles, the Constitutional provision, you have the law, but at the end of the day what you need to prove to the court are factual circumstances. Ganunganunlang ‘yon. So students would ask me ‘Ma’am suspicious batalaga ‘yon?’ well, it’s not up for me to determine, it’s in the judges Aerial Target Zoning Activity – Now, are very common in the early 1989 Constitution after the Martial Law, parangmeron pang remnants ng Martial Law. The police would go to particular area, cordon the place, the area to them is a suspected place for criminals for example drug addicts or drug pushers, and what’s particular about it is they don’t do it in daylight but actually at night when everybody is sleeping. Now, they’d just knock on the door or if not they forcibly open the doors, forcibly lets the residents out, some were asked to kneel, they were gathered in a particular area, asked to kneel, they were checked for certain proof or some other marks in their body, and then if they are suspicious to the police then they are arrested; and while this physical search of their body was going on, some other police authorities will continue searching inside the houses. Ok based on what you know, what did you learn in Constitutional Law, is this kind of search and seizure valid? Of course, not. The first requirement of search and seizure is a search warrant. If there is no search warrant, there are other instances which would be valid, but not these instances before would be a qualification for these kind of searches. Now, what’s the ruling of the SC in this case of Guanzon v de Villa ? The petitioners would like the SC to declare aerial target zonings and saturation drives as illegal and unconstitutional. Given the description, it’s easy to say that saturation drives do not have a place in the Philippines where we observe the 1987 Constitution, as long as in the 1987 Constitution. However, the SC said it is for the executive to make that policy, and not for the SC to make the declaration. What does the SC say if the policy is to allow saturation drive, then it is (words inaudible)? The SC actually evaded the question by saying that there are no specific complaints, no specific complainants, no witnesses, no proofs, no evidences. Based on technicality, it avoided in answering the question. But for a law student, pwedenakayongmagqualify as SC justice, because you can already make dissenting opinion. Now, in the dissent of Justice Cruz, again, the technical grounds are that the petitioners are not proper parties. There is no proof that violation of human rights are made, that’s the same as that no violation of human rights were committed. But the fact that the houses were forcibly entered upon, the residents were forcibly let out, gathered, searched, kahit pa sabihinna ‘Excuse me, sir, pwedepakihubadngtshirt?’ there’s no human right violation daw, but the fact is it was done without a warrant. So here, Justice Cruz said saturation drives are amounted accepted instances where an arrest may be made without a warrant; they come under the concept of fishing expeditions stigmatized by law and doctrines. … the majority is merely introducing the… must not equivocate. Sabihinnyo if it was valid then let us include these exceptions, but huwagkayongmagpa-ano ‘yanpalaw-palaw, and what did you hear? So he said I urge my brethren to accept that those drives are per se unconstitutional. Now, let us just hope and pray that these kinds of drives will not happen again. So far, wala pa naman. … SC… it refused to declare that such saturation drives per se are unconstitutional. For me, it is per se unconstitutional, when it comes to military and policemen

are just entering your house with no reason, no justification, I don’t think you’ll find any justification under our constitution. Now, Section 3 is the Right to Privacy of Communication and Correspondence, but before that, the right to privacy is not just protected under Sec 3, but even in Sec 1, 2, 3 but other sections 8, 6, and 17. So, in the search and seizure that is also protection to the right to privacy. Now, the right to privacy is also known as the right to be left alone. So we have that constitutional right to be left alone. What is the extent of that right? They said that this constitutionally protected, but there should be that reasonable expectation of privacy. Thus, in the case Oplevs Torres, the SC nullified this administrative order mandating a national ID system, because it violates the right to privacy the fact being that there is no restriction or limitation to this ID system. It does not limit what information to be taken from, what information will be shared to others who has the authority to view such information, so it violates one’s right to privacy. So here, it is the burden of the government to show that its restriction is justified by some compelling state interest, that the restriction is narrowly drawn to protect that interest. SC said that gathering information not limited… just to have information just for the purpose of this ID system to facilitate transactions of the government would not justify the gathering of that information. Now, distinguish that from the case of KMU v Director-General. Yung isa, under yunsa time ni Ramos. Now in KMU v Director General, this was during the time of Arroyo. She also mandated a National ID System, but this time SC now said that it is now valid. Why? The information to be taken from an individual is limited. There are only 14 items that are to be asked from an individual, and the authority who has the right to view these information are also limited and classified. So in this case, the National ID System would not be unconstitutional, because it has been in fact been observed by other nations. Only that the law has to provide for the limits on how much information is to be taken from an individual who has the authority to access this information. This time the ID system is valid. Now, in In Re: Sabio we said that there must be reasonable expectation of privacy. Here, Sabio and others are public officers, and their offices are under investigation and inquiry. Now, the inquiry focuses on their acts as directors on public offices. Now they claim their right to privacy. You are a public officer and the inquiry is focused on your acts as such public officer, would you have that reasonable expectation to privacy? Can you claim I have the right to privacy? No, because your public acts or your acts as such public official are supposed to be open to the public, because of your accountability. So in this case, there is no right to speak of that reduces the expectation of right to privacy. Section 3 par. 1 actually the privacy of communication and correspondence. This should be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court… or when otherwise as described by law. Now, right to privacy and correspondence and communication refers to spoken communication and also other tangible forms of communication. So this covers tangible communication of correspondence such as letters and messages and also those kinds of communication made possible by modern technology; intangible such as eavesdropping. O, mgatsismosotsismosa. Eavesdropping on private communications through the use of electronic gadgets, so the guarantee is your right to privacy particular communication and correspondence is guaranteed by the Constitution. Now, the only time that the state can… is when there is a lawful order by the court or public safety or order requires otherwise as specified by law. On the second instance, there must be a law allowing intrusion on your right to privacy to communication and correspondence. In In Re: Alejano, the petitioners here are military officers that have been detained in prison in connection to their participation in coup attempt. Now, while in detention, their unsealed letters – letters inside unsealed envelopes – were read prior to these letters being handed to them. So they were read by the military officers detaining them. Was there a violation of their right to correspondence or right to privacy and communication? Now the theory is that when it

comes to letters you can just open them but not read them, that’s their theory. However, the SC said in this case, it must be noted that the envelopes, in the first place, were not sealed. So the military officers… can read them. The only time that they can’t read them is when the letter comes from the prisoner’s lawyer, because there is confidentiality. So these letters can be read and is the same as opening packages… inspect for some contrabands. The SC further said that the right of the detainees’ right to privacy has that limitation inherent… by the very fact of their detention pre-trial detainees and convicted prisoners have a diminished expectation of the right to privacy rights. Again, can the letters be read? Yes, but it would be different if the letters were sealed. Maybe then there will be a different ruling, they can be opened…Now there’s this another questionable decision of the SC, however, it still remains a valid decision of the SC… Zulueta v CA. Now, in this case, it is the wife who ransacked the door of her husband in the husband’s office. Now, the ransacking or the opening of the door was witnessed by her mother, I think, or some other… Now, she was looking for evidence of her husband’s infidelity, and she used this evidence – she found several letters – to several paramours. She used this in her evidence in her action for legal separation. Is this admissible in evidence or does it violate one’s right to privacy and correspondence? What do you think? Let’s review our fundamental understanding of the Bill of Rights: you can claim this only against the State. Who opened the drawers? The wife. But here, the SC said, siguro prevalently men and SC, that it cannot be admitted in evidence. It violated the husband’s Constitutional right. The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them in breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional protection is ever available to him or to her. But, what I believe is the fact of contracting marriage alone should not shed your individuality. You still remain to be that person. In relation to privacy to correspondence is the Antiwire Tapping Law Republic Act 4200. Now, Sec 1 defines wire-tapping as It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described not being authorised by all the parties like private communication, in other words, if you authorise or if all the parties authorise the tapping, then that would be valid. My only problem here is ‘authorised to secretly overhear’ paanonaging secret ‘yun eh inauthorisemona? That’s just my problem in the phasing of the law, other than that… So bawal mag-tap ngwire, what do you mean by wire-tapping? What do you mean by other device or arrangement? Is an extension telephone considered a violation of the anti-wiretapping law? In the case of Gaanan v IAC, conversation was heard and recorded using the extension line of the telephone. Now the question is, is it covered under the phrase ‘any other device or arrangement’? The SC said no. The law refers to a tap of a wire or cable or any use of device or arrangement for the purpose of secretly hearing, intercepting or recording communication. There must be either physical interruption through wiretap or a deliberate installation of a device or arrangement in order to hear or record or intercept the spoken words. Now what about an extension telephone? It cannot be placed in the same category as a Dictaphone, dictograph or other devices enumerated in Sec1; the use there is considered as tapping wire or cable of a telephone line. It was not installed for that purpose of secretly overhearing. Di ba? Now, when you say device or arrangement it refers to instruments which installation or presence cannot be presumed by the party or parties, because by their very nature they are not in common usage or their purpose is precisely for tapping, intercepting or recording a telephone conversation. With regards an

extension telephone, it is natural to presume that every telephone would have an extension line, so that anyone who is talking on the telephone should have that natural presumption that someone might be listening. In this case, the SC said since it is usually used as a part of a regular telephone, it is not something that you did not expect to be present there. Because of that circumstance, the SC said that an extension line is not covered by the term ‘other devices’. It is natural to presume nanandiyan yang extension line. What the law means is that a tapping or a cable that is not of usual practice. Like what they did of the residence of Arroyo after the ‘Hello Garci’ tape. What is the effect of the violation of this antiwiretapping law? Sec 4 of that law provides that Any communication or spoken word, or the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any information therein contained obtained or secured by any person in violation of the preceding sections of this Act shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.This was applied in the case of SarcedoOrtanez v CA. Here, annulment nanaman. This time the husband asked his military friend to tap their telephone to overhear the conversations of his wife to her paramour. Now, he presented in evidence the recorded conversation, and he claimed that tapping was done by private individual. No, because… even then, the anti-wiretapping law covers any person whether as ???of the state or as of private individual. so it is illegal for any of us to tap our girlfriend’s or boyfriend’s telephone. So in this case, the recorded conversation cannot be admitted in evidence. Par. 2 of Sec 3 is the exclusionary rule. There is no need to further elaborate on that because we’ve been hearing it ever since the moment we studied section 3. Proof of the poisonous tree/three. The exclusionary rule bars the admission of illegally obtained evidence pursuant to the doctrine originally announced in Stonehill v Diokno. In Stonehill v Diokno, which was decided in 1968 or late 1960s, prior to that the general policy is the state should not suffer if the officer plunders. Pagnagkamali ‘yung officer, the evidence should still be admissible without prejudice to the officer being liable. But the SC on the case said that the only way we can demand the officers to observe the right under Sec 2 and Sec 3 is to make that evidence inadmissible. Kasi, what happens is they abuse this policy. ‘Ah! Bahalanawalang search warrant. Anyway, we can still convict the accused.’ So the only way for the officers to observe Sec 2 and 3 is to make the evidence inadmissible. Now, what do you mean by inadmissible? Inadmissible means it cannot be used as evidence against the accused, but it can be used against the officer. Now, the evidence, though inadmissible is not necessarily returned ??? If the object is not prohibited, it must be returned. However, if it is a contraband, it can be confiscated. Kung money ‘yon, it is not illegal per se it has to be returned, but if it is drugs, alangannamannoh? Now, when would you assail the illegality of Search and Seizure? The failure to assail would mean that the search, although invalid, would still be validated. What is the right time to assail it? In the case of Pastrano v CA, the petitioner was charged and convicted with illegal possession of firearms. It was only in his petition for certiorari filed before the SC, when he questioned the inadmissibility of the evidence against him. According to him, the search warrant was invalid. There was a search warrant but it is invalid. Now, can he question that for the first time to the SC? So, the SC said this is a ground for quashing a search warrant, but the petitioner has to quash this at the very initiation of the case. He did not move to quash the motion before the trial court nor did he object to the presentation of evidence obtained of an illegal search. So at any rate, objections in the legality of the search warrant or the inadmissibility of evidence were deemed waived when no objection to the legality of the search warrant was raised during trial; nor the admissibility of evidence obtained… Petitioner thus waived the objection to the legality search. So in other words, if you are to question the legality search, you should do this during trial. Failure to do so, umabotnalangangdesisyon would mean a waiver of your right. Now, who may invoke? … only by the party whose

rights have been impaired, and the objection for the unlawful search and seizure is purely personal; cannot be availed by third parties. Now, what about illegality of the arrest? When should you assail it? The better rule is: to assail the illegality of the arrest is before arraignment. Why? What is the effect of the arrest? What is the implication of arrest? It’s jurisdictional. The moment that you’re arrested the court already has jurisdiction over your person. So if you attended your arraignment and you entered your plea whether you’re guilty or not. You say ‘Not guilty!’; what is the implication? You already submitted yourself to the jurisdiction of the court. Therefore, it is now immaterial whether the arrest is valid or not. Thus, you should question the validity of the arrest when before arraignment. In fact, as practiced by lawyers, they question the arrest as early as the information. Pagreceive pa langng information, they move to quash the information, because there is legal problem with the arrest of the accused. So, the moment that you submit yourself to the jurisdiction of the court, there’s already a waiver to question the validity of your arrest. In People v Biyoc, ok that’s the ruling of the SC in People v Biyoc. In Valdez v People the accused was allegedly arrested without a warrant and thereafter his belongings are searched. Now later it was found out that the arrest without a warrant is illegal. He failed to question the illegality of his arrest. The question is, will it affect the illegality of the search? Because this seems to be a search incident to a valid arrest. Now, if the arrest has been later on declared as invalid, what would happen to the search? It’s also invalid, but if the accused has failed to question the validity of the arrest, because he already participated in the trial, can he still question the illegality of the search? Yes. It doesn’t mean therefore that if there is waiver of the arrest, there is also a corresponding or an automatic waiver of the illegality of the search. In People v Valdez, citing People v Baklaan, the waiver of an illegal warrantless arrest does not also mean a waiver of inadmissibility of evidence seized during the illegal warrantless arrest. Again, arrest, the illegality and legality of it affects the jurisdiction of over the person of the accused. PART 7 Section 4- No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assembe and petition the government for redress of grievances. PUBLIC ASSEMBLY In the case of Delacruz vs CA facts: Involved here are public school teachers who went out of their classes to hold a mass action. The purpose is to demand or dramatize their statutory benefits. Because of the mass action, they were dismissed. Do their dismissal violate the right to petition and assembly? held: Although they have the right to peaceably assemble but the staging of mass action resulted to the stoppage of work. The purpose was for economic reasons rather than freedom of expression. THey argued that their freedom to assemble deserves a higher heirarchy but the SC said it also equally affected the right of education of the students whose classes were disrupted due to the mass action. it was done on a school day and they refused to go back to class after they have been ordered to do so. Here, the teachers committed acts prejudicial to the best interest of the service. MALABANAN VS RAMENTO facts: the students were holding protest inside the campus. They held it outside the premises they were permitted to conduct. Thus, classes were disrupted. Do they have the right to peaceably to assemble? held: The SC said yes. The students do not shed the constitutional right to expression. At the height of the demonstration with the enthusiastic audience quoting them on, it is quite expected that they are loud, assertive and dogmatic. it is already expected that high emotions will rule. Although they have this rights, they violated the permit. They are liable in that they violated the permit granted to them in holding in out in the 2nd floor instead of the ground floor. But

the SC said the penalty imposed on them which is 1 year suspension is too severe. An admonition or censure would be appropriated. Nestle philsvs SANCHEZ facts: labor unions picketing outside the office of the supreme court. They pressured the SC by loud speakers, banners, setting up of tents and they prevented the employees of the SC in going inside the building. They disrupted the regular operation. held; Although they apologized and the SC accepted, the SC said that they will not hesitate to penalized persons for contempt who disrupt or attempt to pressure the SC. If they want to air their greivances they should file a proper petition or a proper motion. As you can see, this is consistent with other cases in which you exercise your right to peaceably assembly. The SC made a ruling in this case that no demonstration should be allowed in the vicinity or premises of any courts in the country. Relevant to the study of public assembly is the Public Assembly ACT - BP 880 enacted in 1985- An act ensuring the free exercise of the people to peaceably assembly and petition the government for the other purposes. Public Assembly is a rally, demonstration, march, parade or any form of concerted action held in a public place for the purpose of presenting a lawful case or expressing an opinion to the general public or petitioning the government for redress of grievances. BAYAN VS ERMITA The constitutionality of BP880 was questioned in this case. According to petitioners this is a content-based restriction because of the words protesting, lawful case, etc. There is no clear and present danger to make such restriction. BP 880 requires those who engage in rallies to first obtain a permit from the city officials. According to them, this is unconstitutional. is this content-based or content-neutral? held: This is not a content-based restriction as per the SC. The law is not concern with the subject of the assembly. The words protesting, lawful cause could cover or refer to any subject. The concern is more of the time, place and manner of assembly. This is content-neutral. Content-neutral does not have the heavy burden of unconstitutional because it does not concern with he utterances. But if it is content-based , the SC may look into if the restriction is valid. It has the burden of unconstitutionality. Excluded from the coverage of BP880 are: 1. assemblies for religious purposes-this is covered by local ordinances 2. picketing in areas resulting from labor disputes - covered by the labor laws 3. rallies during political campaign periods- covered by election laws The permit is required for person who holds a public assembly in a public place. What is a public place? it includes any highway, boulevard, avenue, roads, bridges, parks, plazas and places of public ownership where people allowed access. A permit is required since this is for a public use and if you use it for public assembly, the result is you exclude others persons of its use. The authority should regulate the use of it. You inconvenience the others, that is why the permit is required for the use of the public place. The permit is the use for the place and not for the assembly since the right is there. A permit is not required: 1. 2. 3. Freedom parks Private place State-own educational institutions

Can the Mayor change the venue of the rally? In the case of Reyes vsBagatsing

A permit was applied here was for a protest rally against the us embassy. They learned a day before the scheduled rally that their permit was denied with regards to the place and was transferred to rizal coliseum. Is the mayor correct? The general rule is that permit should be granted. If it has to be modified, the reason should be there is clear and present danger of a substantial evil that the municipality has to prevent. Here, there was no substantial evil shown. How do you apply for permit? 1. 2. The application must be filed 5 workings days before the scheduled rally. The mayor must act on it within 2 days. Failure of the mayor to act on it will render the permit deemed granted.

Held: The SC said it is illegal. If you practice maximum tolerance, then practice maximum tolerance. The using of CPR ( calibrated pre-emptive response) is an excuse to disperse the rally. It serves no valid purpose. BP 880 also mandated that the freedoms parks requires no permit if persons will use it for assembly. The problem lies that we have limited freedom parks here in the country. One example of freedom park is the osmena park in cebu. That is why the SC made a drastic ruling in Bayan vsErmita, they ruled that all public places or plazas requires no permit in the event that the cities have no freedom parks. They did not wait for the 30 days requirement of the cities/municipalities to select a public place for its freedom parks. PART 8 In which right was the chilling effect used by the supreme court? Actually, this was in relation to the right of freedom to peaceably assembly. It was discussed in the case of Bayan vs ermita which the use of the term CPR – calibrated pre-emptive response creates the chilling effect. So that is part of the reason why it should not be used in the view of maximum tolerance. SEC 5- No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil or political rights. Freedom of religion has 2 parts: 1. Non-establishment clause- meaning the state cannot set up a church, nor passed laws with aid to one religion or prefer 1 religion over another. The stance of state in religion is one of neutrality. Neither protects or upholds a religion. It cannot force or influence a person to any religion. The state cannot punished a person fro entertaining or professing beliefs or disbeliefs.

But the problem is if it is deemed granted then you rally on the scheduled day you have not permit with you to show the police. Your rally will be disperse for the policy is no permit, no rally. The SC has recognized this recurring problem. It made this ruling - The SC said that rallyists who can show their application duly filed for permit which is 5 days before the scheduled date can rally in accordance without showing the permit. The grant of the permit being then presumed under the law. Since it is presumed, the burden shifts to the police to prove that the permit was denied. Another problem, what if the mayor will not receive the application? There is already remedy - for any reason that the Mayor refuses to accept the application, said application shall be posted by the applicant within the premises of the office of the mayor and shall be deemed to have been filed. Under sec 6, BP 880, there is procedure if the permit is denied. 1. 2. It must be communicated to the applicant within 24 hours. If want to question the decision the of the mayor, you can file a petition in court and the court will act on it within 24 hours. If want to contest the decision of the court, you can still file a petition with the CA, they will act on it within 48 hours.


IBP vs ATIENZA Facts: The IBP applied for a permit to rally at the foot of mendiola bridge. Athough it was granted, the place was modified to plaza Miranda. Can the mayor do that? Held: Again, the test to be usein modifying the permit is to show a clear and present danger to deny or modify such permit. If no showing of clear and present danger then the permit should be granted. The general rule is that permit should be granted. What is the assembly? Sec 9, BP 880 except: 1. stance of police authorities against

The state cannot levy any tax in any amount to support any religious activities. The state can’t openly or secretly participate in the affairs of any religion group or vice-versa. A violation of this clause if the state’s act has no secular legistlative purpose and its principle or primary effect is one that neither advances or inhibits a religion. Sometimes the State enacts laws that there is that collateral effect to religion but if the primary purpose is secular then it cannot violate this clause. In the case of aglipay vs ruiz: The state thru a law appropriated an action amount for the printing of stamps, the stamps will be released in relation to the 33rd international Eucharistic congress. That’s an activity posted by the catholic church. Was there a violation? Held: The SC said there was no constitutional infraction. There was no violation for the purpose of the stamps. The stamps was generated for the purpose of tourism. What was emphasize was the venue which was manila-showing it to the whole world as form of tourism. It is to raise revenue and promote the Philippines. The design did not contain any religious charaters but the map of the phils. Garces vs Estano: In this case, the barangay council purchased a statue of a saint for the celebration of the fiesta. When we speak of fiesta, it is a celebration of saints of the catholics. Is there a violation since the money used to purchased it was from the barangay council? Held: the Sc said that fiesta is already culturally engrained in us. It is already a part of our culture so it is not an issue anymore if fiesta is a religious act or not. Also, it is not a violation of the non-establishment clause since the funds used in purchasing it is thru solicitation which are from private

- Police have no role in public assemblies

To ensure public safety, a law enforcement contingent should be stationed in a place at least 100 meters away from the area of activity. Their purpose is to protect the rallyists or the demonstrators. That is why the policy is maximum tolerance- the highest degree of restraint that the military or police shall observe during a public assembly or dispersal.

When will be a public assembly be disperse? When the assembly becomes violent. BAYAN VS ERMITA the calibrated pre-emptive response was enforced in view of maximum tolerance. Petitioners argue that this is in violation of maximum tolerance. Pre-emptive meaning that they will disperse before the rally can start if there is a showing of any violence and this would depend on the actions shown or observed by the police authorities.

individuals hence are private funds. No public funds was involved. Manosca vs CA: The state expropriated the birth site of Felix Manalo which is the founder of Iglesia ni Cristo. By expropriation means public funds was used here to buy the property. Was there a violation? Held: The SC said NO. the expropriation was not a violation for it was not promoting iglesia ni kristo. It was expropriating the property for the historical importance of the land. It is for the reason that the founder of INC was a prominent member of the society and his existence has contributed much to the culture of the Philippines. It is for a non-secular purpose where it is the site was preserved for tourism purposes. IGlesia ni kristo vs CA: The MTRCB gave an x-rating for the television show of INC. it prohibited the showing of the episode. The first question, can the MTCRB do that? HELD: The SC said, if it satisfies the clear and present danger rule with substantive evil which is the state is duty bound to prevent. It has the power to delete, prohibit of its showing. Why? Because TV shows are accessible to everyone. Even if you classify it to R-18 or GP, you are not sure if the parents are present and guiding their children. It’s different with the movies- they can classify it. It was prohibited because accordingly they attack the other religious views. It was not proper for they exceeded on their views. The state allows neutrality for religion views. The remedy against bad theology is good theology. 2. a. Free exercise clause – we have two parts: The freedom to believe- it is absolute as long as it is in the realm of thoughts. A person may free to believe or not to believe, worship any God or none at all, indulge in his own theories on life and death, acknowledge any being to his reverence. All is matter of faith. Freedom to act on one’s belief- this is subject to state regulation. The individual externalizes the acts of his belief which is the subject of the authority of the state. This can be enjoyed with the proper recognizance of the rights of others.

can’t be refuse employment or dismiss from employment in this case. The religion freedom occupies a higher level than the right to associate.


For example, while one has freedom to believe in human sacrifice, this will be under our laws murder. In indian practicem the wife burns herself beside the dead body of his husband, that is suicide under our laws. A person cannot refuse to pay taxes because of his religion. We have our own laws. Ebralinag vs secretary: The members of Jehovah witness were penalized for not saluting the Philippine flag because their religious beliefs states that saluting a flag will be like saluting an idol. Held: In this case, they claim religious freedom. They will not be compelled to salute a flag. Religious freedom can be an excused in saluting a flag but they should observe silence and respect others who are saluting the flag. Victoriano vs Elizalde: The employees here are members of Jehovah’s witness. They have a closed-shop union agreement where it means that you can only be employed or continue employment if you are member of the union. If you will not associate with this union, you are terminated. Under the Jehovah’s witness religion, they are prohibited to affiliate with organizations. Can they be compelled? Held: The SC sustain the provision allowing laborers to dissociate for labor unions despite this closed shop-agreement if they are members of any religion sect which prohibits their members to affiliate with any organization. Members of religion sects

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful