crime has been committed, and the person is probably
1. TERRY SEARCH
(1.5pts)
Terry Search as stated in the case of Terry v. Ohio, the
Supreme Court states that during the stop-and-frisk
operation, it is only limited to a protective search and
applies only to the outer garment of the person
searched.
2. PLAIN VIEW
(1.5pts)
Plain view doctrine is an exception to a warrantless
search and seizure.
The requisites are as follows:
1) there is a justified prior intrusion;
2) that the character of evidence is incriminating;
3) it is immediately apparent or can be seen in a
plain sight; and
4) the is no need for extensive search.
3. SEIZURE OF ALLEGEDLY PORNOGRAPHIC MATERIALS
(1pt)
Pornography contains explicit display of material which
are shocking to an ordinary man which has no artistic,
scientific, literary or political view.
4. PROBABLE CAUSE IN A SEARCH WARRANT
(1.5pts)
The probable cause in a search warrant is that, it would
lead a reasonable, prudent and discreet man
antecedent to the issuance of that warrant that a
guilt and has the possession of:
a. item or things subject of the offense
b. fruits, products or embezzled things of the
offense
c. items, or things than can be used for the
commission of an offense.
5. DOCTRINE OF THE FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS TREE
(2pts)
The doctrine of the fruit of the poisonous tree is that
when an evidence or a thing which is unlawfully
acquired or gathered is inadmissible as evidence.
6. FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION – LIBEL
(5pts)
No. the court is not correct. As a general rule, malice is
presumed. However, every general rule has an
exception. Libel has three (3) exceptions.
First – it was published for social or civic duty
Second – it was only a pure factual statement
Third – it was done to a public officer in the exercise or
his official function or duty.
Here, in the given set of facts, all three exceptions
apply to the newspaper publication. Police General
Bato Tigastito should’ve presented evidence to support
his complaint that there was malice. The burden of
evidence has shifted to him.
7. REQUISITES OF A VALID SEARCH WARRANT
 (5pts)
No. The warrant is invalid. Under the rules od court,
the requisites for a valid search warrant are as follows:
1) there must be a probable cause;
2) the probable cause must be personally
determined by the judge;
3) the probable cause must be done after the
judge personally examined the applying officer,
and the witnesses he may produce. It must be
based upon personal knowledge of the officer
or witnesses;
4) it must contain a single offense; and
5) it must describe the place to be search and
things to be seized.
Under the given state of facts, there are two offenses,
unlicensed firearms and counterfeit money. The
requisites were not mer. Hence, the warrant is invalid.
8. DETERMINATION BY THE JUDGE
(5pts)
No. The Search warrant is invalid. Under the Ruled of
Court, the requisites for a valid search warrant are as
follows:
1) there must be a probable cause;
2) the probable cause must be personally
determined by the judge;
3) the probable cause must be determined after
the judge conducted an examination to the
applying officer, and the witnesses he may
produce is based upon their personal
knowledge;
4) it must contain a single offense; and
5) it must describe the place to be search and
things to be seized
Under the given set of facts, the testimony of the
police officer that the accused’s property is seditious in
nature is a conclusion of law. It is up to the court to
determine if the accused property is seditious in
nature. His personal knowledge is a conclusion of law.
Hence, the warrant is invalid.
9. CONSENTED SEARCH
(4.5pts)
No. The search and seizure was invalid. There was no
consented searched happened, nor waived his right to
a consented search. Mere silence or obedience to
authority doesn’t amount to a consented search, but
merely demonstrated his respect to the Supremacy of
law. (People v. Larcia)
The validity us only on the exterior part of the car, or
vehicle, it only applied in the beaming of his flashlight
to interior. Police officer B is not allowed to search into
the glove compartment because it is located on the
interior part of the vehicle. The subsequent search on
the glove compartment is invalid.
10. SEARCH WARRANT – SINGLE OFFENSE
(5pts)
 I would deny the motion. Illegal drug paraphernalia
and dangerous drugs are categorized as a single
offense in the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002. The warrant is valid.
11. MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
(5pts)
Yes. The motion to suppress evidence is meritorious.
In the case of Minnesota vs. Dickerson, the court held
that the search was invalid, citing the Terry vs. Ohio
doctrine that the search must be a protective search
and a pat-down search only applies to the outer
garment of the person. However, under the given set
of facts, the search conducted was an extensive search
because it was done in the bind pockets which us on
the interior part of the garment. Hence the search and
seizure of shabu is invalid. Therefore, inadmissible as
evidence being the fruit of poisonous tree.
12. PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE
(3pts)
I would grant the motion in part. I will held the validity
of the seized marijuana plants because under the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, mere
possession of plant is illegal. However, I would
suppress the stocks of marijuana leaves because it was
found inside the tool shed. The seizure of the
marijuana leaves is invalid applying the plain view
doctrine. The requisites under the plain view doctrine
are as follows,
a. the prior intrusion was justified;
b. that the character of the evidence is
incriminating;
c. it is immediately apparent or can be
seen in plain sight; and
d. there is no need for extensive search.
Under the given set of facts, the marijuana leaves
found inside the tool shed. It was not apparent or can
be seen in plain sight, there is a need or extensive
search. Hence, police officer cannot claim that the
marijuana leaves seizure is valid applying the plain
view doctrine.
13. PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE
(3pts)
I would grant the motion. Police officer should’ve
applied a search and seizure warrant with regard to
the other magazines seized, however the seizure of the
El cura Magazine was valid because the possession of it
is a crime. The other magazine cannot be held as a
valid seizure because plain view doctrine cannot be
applied because police office P conducted an extensive
search in an area not within his immediate control.
14. WARRANTLESS ARREST
(0.5pt)
No. the arrest was not valid. The crime was not
committed in his presence, and he had no personal
knowledge about it. It does not fall under the
exception of earrantless arrest.
 No, the search and seizure were invalid. It does not fall
under the exception such as stop & frisk, plain view,
moving vehicle, checkpoint, airport searches. The
police officer 1 Nuval should’ve applied for a search &
seizure warrant.
15. k