FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE

The Constitution provides:

Any evidence obtained in violation of [the right against unreasonable searches and
seizures] shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

Otherwise known as the exclusionary rule or the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, this constitutional
provision originated from Stonehill v. Diokno. This rule prohibits the issuance of general warrants that
encourage law enforcers to go on fishing expeditions. Evidence obtained through unlawful seizures
should be excluded as evidence because it is “the only practical means of enforcing the constitutional
injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures.” It ensures that the fundamental rights to one’s
person, houses, papers, and effects are not lightly infringed upon and are upheld.

People vs. Cogaed, G.R. No. 200334, July 30, 2014 citing Stonehill v. Diokno, 126 Phil. 738.

“Evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such an unreasonable search and seizure is
tainted and should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of the poisonous tree.”

Villamor vs. People, G.R. No. 200396, March 22, 2017 citing Ambre vs. People, 692 Phil. 681,693 (2012).