You are on page 1of 8

http://protectionline.

org/files/2012/10/tulawie_motion_for_recon
sideration_20_sept12_draft2.pdf --- MR

1. G.R. No. 182010 SUSAN ESQUILLO Y ROMINES v. PEOPLE OF


THE PHILIPPINES

Thus, we should exclude the evidence then seized from the petitioner,
for that is the only way by which the Court can effectively enforce the
guarantee of the Bill of Rights to her right to privacy and personal security
expressed under its Section 2, supra. The exclusionary rule is embodied in
Section 3 of the Bill of Rights, thus:

Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and


correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of
the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as
prescribed by law.

(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the


preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in
any proceeding.

The eminent Justice Frankfurter observed in Walder v. United


States[24] that the application of the exclusionary rule and the invalidation of
the conviction were necessary to prevent the State from profiting from its
agents stark violation of this important constitutional right, thus:

The Government cannot violate the Fourth Amendment in the


only way in which the Government can do anything, namely
through its agents and use the fruits of such unlawful conduct to
secure a conviction. Weeks v. United States (US) supra. Nor can
the Government make indirect use of such evidence for its
case, Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 US 385, 64
L ed 319, 40 S Ct 182, 24 ALR 1426, or support a conviction on
evidence obtained through leads from the unlawfully obtained
evidence, cf. Nardone v. United States, 308 US 338, 84 L ed
307, 60 S Ct 266. All these methods are outlawed, and
convictions obtained by means of them are invalidated,
because they encourage the kind of society that is
obnoxious to free men.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fn
t44

2. Miller v. US, 357 US 301, 313.

It is frequently argued that legal technicalities give undue


advantage to criminals and that the police must be unshackled in
order to fight crime more effectively. Whatever theoretical
standards are ideally required, the practical demands of effective
criminal investigation require some compromise with theory. It
seems obvious that every restriction on police behavior hampers
law enforcement. On the other hand, the human animal
rebels at the thought of change, especially when such
change implies more work, and police have opposed every
incursion on their activities since the abolition of the rack
and screw. Yet, each of their dire predictions has gone
unfulfilled because this myopic view confuses the long-
run and the short-run. As the Supreme Court has said:

However much in a particular case insistence


upon such rules may appear as a technicality that
inures to the benefit of a guilty person, the history
of the criminal law proves that tolerance of
shortcut methods in law enforcement impairs its
enduring effectiveness.[27]

3. G.R. No. 179736 June 26, 2013


SPOUSES BILL AND VICTORIA HING, Petitioners,
vs.
ALEXANDER CHOACHUY, SR. and ALLAN CHOACHUY, Respondents

"The concept of liberty would be emasculated if it does not likewise compel respect for
one's personality as a unique individual whose claim to privacy and non-interference
demands respect."1

The Petition is meritorious.

The right to privacy is the right to be let alone.

The right to privacy is enshrined in our Constitution44 and in our laws. It is defined as "the right to be
free from unwarranted exploitation of ones person or from intrusion into ones private activities in
such a way as to cause humiliation to a persons ordinary sensibilities."45 It is the right of an
individual "to be free from unwarranted publicity, or to live without unwarranted interference by the
public in matters in which the public is not necessarily concerned."46 Simply put, the right to privacy is
"the right to be let alone."47

The Bill of Rights guarantees the peoples right to privacy and protects them against the States
abuse of power. In this regard, the State recognizes the right of the people to be secure in their
houses. No one, not even the State, except "in case of overriding social need and then only under
the stringent procedural safeguards," can disturb them in the privacy of their homes. 48

The right to privacy under Article 26(1)

of the Civil Code covers business offices

where the public are excluded

therefrom and only certain individuals

are allowed to enter.

Article 26(1) of the Civil Code, on the other hand, protects an individuals right to privacy and
provides a legal remedy against abuses that may be committed against him by other individuals. It
states:

Art. 26. Every person shall respect the dignity, personality, privacy and peace of mind of his
neighbors and other persons. The following and similar acts, though they may not constitute a
criminal offense, shall produce a cause of action for damages, prevention and other relief:

(1) Prying into the privacy of anothers residence;

xxxx
This provision recognizes that a mans house is his castle, where his right to privacy cannot be
denied or even restricted by others. It includes "any act of intrusion into, peeping or peering
inquisitively into the residence of another without the consent of the latter." 49 The phrase "prying into
the privacy of anothers residence," however, does not mean that only the residence is entitled to
privacy. As elucidated by Civil law expert Arturo M. Tolentino:

Our Code specifically mentions "prying into the privacy of anothers residence." This does not mean,
however, that only the residence is entitled to privacy, because the law covers also "similar acts." A
business office is entitled to the same privacy when the public is excluded therefrom and only such
individuals as are allowed to enter may come in. x x x50 (Emphasis supplied)

Thus, an individuals right to privacy under Article 26(1) of the Civil Code should not be confined to
his house or residence as it may extend to places where he has the right to exclude the public or
deny them access. The phrase "prying into the privacy of anothers residence," therefore, covers
places, locations, or even situations which an individual considers as private. And as long as his right
is recognized by society, other individuals may not infringe on his right to privacy. The CA, therefore,
erred in limiting the application of Article 26(1) of the Civil Code only to residences.

The "reasonable expectation of


privacy" test is used to determine
whether there is a violation of the right
to privacy.

In ascertaining whether there is a violation of the right to privacy, courts use the "reasonable
expectation of privacy" test. This test determines whether a person has a reasonable expectation of
privacy and whether the expectation has been violated.51 In Ople v. Torres,52 we enunciated that "the
reasonableness of a persons expectation of privacy depends on a two-part test: (1) whether, by his
conduct, the individual has exhibited an expectation of privacy; and (2) this expectation is one that
society recognizes as reasonable." Customs, community norms, and practices may, therefore, limit
or extend an individuals "reasonable expectation of privacy." 53 Hence, the reasonableness of a
persons expectation of privacy must be determined on a case-to-case basis since it depends on the
factual circumstances surrounding the case.54
4. APPLICATION OF EXCLUSIONARY RULE FOR THE FIRST TIME ON
APPEAL.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/august2010/182010_bersamin.htm

Thus, we should exclude the evidence then seized from the petitioner, for
that is the only way by which the Court can effectively enforce the
guarantee of the Bill of Rights to her right to privacy and personal
security expressed under its Section 2, supra. The exclusionary rule is
embodied in Section 3 of the Bill of Rights, thus:

Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be


inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order
requires otherwise as prescribed by law.

(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section


shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

The eminent Justice Frankfurter observed in Walder v. United States[24] that


the application of the exclusionary rule and the invalidation of the conviction were
necessary to prevent the State from profiting from its agents stark violation of this
important constitutional right, thus:

The Government cannot violate the Fourth Amendment in the only way in which
the Government can do anything, namely through its agents and use the fruits of
such unlawful conduct to secure a conviction. Weeks v. United States (US) supra.
Nor can the Government make indirect use of such evidence for its
case, Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 US 385, 64 L ed 319, 40 S Ct
182, 24 ALR 1426, or support a conviction on evidence obtained through leads
from the unlawfully obtained evidence, cf. Nardone v. United States, 308 US 338,
84 L ed 307, 60 S Ct 266. All these methods are outlawed, and convictions
obtained by means of them are invalidated, because they encourage the kind
of society that is obnoxious to free men
The failure to object to the irregularity of an arrest prior to the
arraignment does not involve a waiver of the inadmissibility of the
evidence. It only amounts to a submission to the jurisdiction of the trial
court. The Court said so in several decisions, including People v.
Lapitaje,[5] viz:

Nor can it lightly be assumed that, as a practical matter, adoption of


the exclusionary rule fetters law enforcement. Only last year this Court
expressly considered that contention and found that pragmatic evidence
of a sort to the contrary was not wanting. Elkins v. United States . . . .
[364 U.S. 206, 218]. The Court noted that:

The federal courts themselves have operated under the


exclusionary rule of Weeks for almost half a century; yet it has
not been suggested either that the Federal Bureau of
Investigation [citing remarks of J. Edgar Hoover quoted
in Elkins, supra at 218-19] has thereby been rendered ineffective,
or that the administration of criminal justice in the federal courts
has thereby been disrupted . . .. Id., at 218-219

Indeed, it is conceivable that adherence to the Constitution would improve


justice. xxx

The right of the petitioner to privacy and to personal security intoned herein
at the start and enshrined in the Bill of Rights of the Constitution was violated by
the arresting officer. We should not hesitate to rectify the violation, and so we must
acquit her.

LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate Justice

5. ARGUMENTS ON SELF SERVING AND BIASED TESTIMONY


(UNCORROBORATED) = struck down
6. ELEMENT OF INTENT AS SPECIAL ELEMENT IN MALICIOUS
MISCHIEF (establish the absence of intent; intent to retaliate but
not to intend to damage the property)

7. MORAL DAMAGES AWARD

8. CONNECTION BETWEEN THE ACT DONE AND INJURY SUSTAINED

9. Jurisprudence stating, (i) IN PARI DELICTO (no one comes to court


without clean hands), (ii) doctrine on beyond reasonable doubt, (iii)
the prosecution must rely on the strength of its evidence and not
the weakness of the accused since the court did not accurately
proved the intent because of lack of contentions on the defense
proving the intent.

There are crimes that by their structure can not be committed through imprudence: murder, treason,
robbery, malicious mischief, etc. In truth, criminal negligence in our Revised Penal Code is treated as
a mere quasi offense, and dealt with separately from willful offenses.

All the essential elements to establish the crime of Malicious Mischief has been
sufficiently proven against accused Valerozo (sic) alone. The evidence taken as a
whole, however, does not point with positive certainty towards the guilt of the rest of
the defendants. [3]

Further, the charge for malicious mischief and theft are also not supported by evidence. In the absence of
eyewitnesses who positively identified respondents as the perpetrators of the crime the photographs
submitted are incompetent to indicate that respondents committed the acts complained of. The respondents
here were merely charged on the basis of conjectures and surmises that they may have committed the
same due to their previous altercations. ---- (arguments on video showing nothing and the accused was not
the one throwing)

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/november2010/172716.htm

You might also like