Professional Documents
Culture Documents
org/files/2012/10/tulawie_motion_for_recon
sideration_20_sept12_draft2.pdf --- MR
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:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2013/jun2013/gr_179736_2013.html#fn
t44
"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 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
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:
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.
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:
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:
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
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