Republic of the Philippines

Regional Trial Court

Branch No. ______

Legazpi City

Mr. A,

Plaintiff,

Criminal Case No. XXXXX

-versus-

For: ____________________

Mr. B,

Respondent,

MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE

The ACCUSED, through the undersigned counsel and unto this Honorable Court,
respectfully moves for the suppression of evidence seized illegally.

DISCUSSION

It is in light of procedural rules anchored on well-settled constitutional respectfully

moves for the suppression of illegally seized evidence on the following grounds:

In accordance to Article III, Section 3(2) of the Constitution considers any evidence
obtained in violation of unreasonable searches and seizures as inadmissible. It is the right
of the petitioner to have a secure and privacy in accordance to Article III, Section 2 of the
Constitution. The seizure must be in accordance and valid legally which was issued by
the Judicial Department.  A  search  and  seizure  is  unreasonable  if  it  is  made  without

a warrant, or the warrant was invalidly issued. In  all  instances,  what  constitutes 
reasonable  or  unreasonable search or seizure is a purely judicial question determinable
from a consideration of the attendant circumstances.   

“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.”

In Ambre v People, “evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such

unreasonable searches and seizures are deemed tainted and should be excluded for being
the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree.”

In People v Aruta, “while the power to search and seize may at times be necessary to
the public welfare, still it must be exercised and the law implemented without
contravening the constitutional rights of the citizens; for the enforcement of no statute is
of sufficient importance to justify indifference to the basic principles of government.”

In Comerciante v People, cited that “Section 2, Article III  of the Constitution

mandates that a search and seizure must be carried out through or on the strength of a
judicial warrant predicated upon the existence of probable cause; in the absence of such
warrant, such search and seizure becomes, as a general rule, "unreasonable" within the
meaning of said constitutional provision.
1. In Stonehill v Diokno, adopting exclusionary rule to the 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.”

DIAZ vsPEOPLE OF THE PHIL

2.  No valid search was made. For this reason, objects searched and seized must be
suppressed

PRAYER

Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed for that all object searched and seized be
INADMISSIBLE under the exclusionary rule in Article III, Section3(2) in relation to
section 2 of the Constitution.

Legazpi City, Philippines, November 12, 2019.

ABC LAW FIRM

Counsel for Accused

Legazpi City Philippines

By:
 Joyce Relente

PTR NO. XXXXXXXX

IBP NO. XXXXXXXXX

ROLL NO.
XXXXXXXX

Legazpi City

NOTICE OF HEARING

Office of the City Prosecutor

Hall of Justice

Legazpi City

Branch Clerk of Court

Regional Trial Court

Legazpi City

Branch 10

GREETINGS:
 Please submit this Motion to Suppress Evidence on November 13, 2019 at 2:00 PM
for the consideration and approval of this Honorable Court.

Joyce Relente

EXPLANATION

A copy of the foregoing Motion to Suppress Illegally Searched Evidence was filed
and served upon the prosecution via registered mail.