LEGAL TECHNIQUE AND LOGIC

1. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the exclusionary and non-exclusionary rules.

The (in)admissibility of evidence were laid down by the parties in the Stonehill vs. Diokno case.

It can be had from Article III, Sec 3 (2) of the 1987 Constitution what exclusionary rule prohibits.
It says: “Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible
for any purpose in any proceeding.” What then are in those sections? Section 2 provides: “The
right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally by
the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be
seized.” Section 3. (1) meanwhile states: “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.”

Non-exclusionary rule is stated otherwise. It is the doctrine enunciated in the Moncado case. It
ruled that evidence illegally obtained is not necessarily excluded if it is otherwise admissible under
the rules of evidence. It is upon the theory that the constitutional prohibition against unreasonable
searches and seizures is protected by means other than the exclusion of evidence unlawfully
obtained. Said position was in line with the American common law rule, that the criminal should
not be allowed to go free merely “because the constable blundered.” Action for damages against
the searching officer, against the party who procured the issuance of the search warrant and against
those assisting in the execution of an illegal search, their criminal punishment, and such other legal
remedies as may be provided by other laws would not justify the curtailment of rights.

The Moncado ruling was altogether abandoned in the Stonehill case. The exclusion of such
evidence is the only practical means of enforcing the constitutional injunction against unreasonable
searches and seizures. If there is competent evidence to establish probable cause of the commission
of a given crime by the party against whom the warrant is intended, then there is no reason why
the applicant should not comply with the constitutional requirements. If he has no such evidence,
then it is not possible for the judge to find that there is probable cause, and, hence, no justification
for the issuance of warrant. The only possible explanation for the issuance is that case is the
necessity of fishing for evidence of the commission of a crime.

Further, criminal prosecution of those who secure an illegal search warrant and/or make
unreasonable searches and seizures, as justification of non-exclusionary rule, overlooks the fact
that violations committed by agents of the party in power are subject to abuse. Although there is
possibility of convicting those agents of the party in power, it cannot be discounted that the same
agents would be pardoned later on by the party whose benefit the illegality had been committed.
2. Would you recommend to return to the Moncado ruling? Explain.

I would not recommend the return of the non-exclusionary rule. As previously stated, if there is
competent evidence to establish probable cause of the commission of a given crime by the party
against whom the warrant is intended, then there is no reason why the applicant should not comply
with the constitutional requirements. If he has no such evidence, then it is not possible for the judge
to find that there is probable cause, and, hence, no justification for the issuance of warrant. Besides,
there are valid warrantless arrests in which searches and seizures incident to the same are also
valid.

It is also noteworthy that our legal system was shaped in the mold of other countries’ legal system.
As it is just right for us to draw our own, it is not also wrong to be abreast of what’s shaping
outside. Recommending otherwise would be an uphill climb as it would take an overhaul of the
fundamental law of the land to remove the guarantees against unreasonable searches and seizures,
against self-incrimination, and against intrusion of privacy of domicile and communication. In
other words, liberty, as represented by the Bill of Rights, must be maintained in equilibrium with
authority, represented by the three (3) inherent powers of the Government – Police Power, Eminent
Domain and Taxation. As they say, more emphasis on liberty equals anarchy and more emphasis
on the other, tyranny.

The Moncado ruling has long been abandoned by other countries. So much so that reverting back
to the same would not be as practicable.

Submitted by:

DENNIS T. VELASQUEZ

Submitted to:

ATTY. CHRISTIAN CABRERA