Jericho M. Lipana Atty.

Chris Noel Bendijo

BSLM 3A December 10,2020

Constitution
Comparative Analysis of Cases

Article 3, Section 2

People vs Marti [G.R.No..81561, January 18, 1991]/////Stonehill vs Diokno[G.R.No.L-

19550,June9,1967]/////People vs Aminnudin[G.R.No.L-74869],Jly 6,1998]/////People vs
Malmstedt [G.R. No.91107,July 6,1998]/////People vs Musa [G.R.No..96177, January 27,
1993]

In the first case, Andre Marti together with his common law wife, Shirley Reyes went to
Manila Packaging and Export Forwarders to send packages to Switzerland. It was
received and sealed by Anita Reyes, but her husband and proprietor of the courier
company, Job Reyes. Conducted and inspection and noticed a suspicious odor coming
from the said package. Job Reyes reported it to the NBI and proceeded to inspect the
package in the presence of the NBI agents and found dried marijuana leaves inside. Thus
a case was filed against Andre Marti and was found guilty of the Court in violation of RA
6425. Andre appeled to the Supreme Court claiming that his constitutional right of
privacy was violated and the evidence is inadmissible. In this case the SC ruled that the
constitutional right to privacy cannot be envoked because the bill of rights only governs
relationships between the individual and the state and not on an individual against an
individual. Thus the inspection was made by Job Reyes and not by the NBI agents and it
being done in their presence did not equate into a warrantless search and seizure
proscribed in the Constitution. Comparing it to the other cases the supreme court ruled in
this case differently because this case it does not involve the action of government
agencies for no government agencies specifically the NBI conducted the search while the
other cases in this list involves Government agencies and officers.

In the case of Stonehill vs Diokno, Stonehill and the corporations they form were alleged
to have commited acts in violation of Central bank laws, Tariff and customs Laws,
Internal Revenue Code and the Revised Penal Code, the respondents issued 42 search
warrants against the petitioners personally and the corporation for which they are officers
directing peace officers to search the persons of petitoners and the premises of their
offices, warehouses and residences to search for personal properties. The documents and
papers and things seized under the alleged authority of the warrants may be slit into two
major groups, those found and seized in the offices of the aforementioned corporations
and those seized in the reisidences of petitioners. The petitioners averred that the warrant
is null and void for the warrant did not describe with particularity the documents, books
and things to be seized, the money obtained was not mentioned in the warrant, the
searches and seizures were made in an illegal manner. In this case the Supreme court
ruled in favor of the petitioners. Reiterating section 2 of article 3 of the 1987 constitution.
No warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined personally by he judge
in the manner set forth in said provision and that the warrant shall particularly describe
the things to be seized. In the case at bar these requirements are not met..Comparing it to
the other cases in this list this case lacks a valid probable cause for the warrant issued is
based on mere allegations alone and did not include a reference and competent proof that
would lead to believe that the petitioners commited an act in violation of said laws

In the Case of People vs Aminnudin, Idel Aminnudin was arrested on June 25, 1984,
shortly after disembarking from the M/V Wilcon 9 for carrying marijuana. Two days
prior the arrest, The PC officers received a tip from one of their informers that
Aminnudin was carrying marijuana in said vessel bound for Iloilo, in which they waited
for him in the evening and approached him when the informer pointed him. He was
detained and they found three kilos of marijuana leaves. Thus a case was filed against
aminnudin. The Supreme court acquitted aminnudin. Thus vessels and aircraft are subject
to warrantless searches and seizures for violation of the customs law because these
vehicles may be quickly moved out of the locality of jurisdiction before the warrant can
be secured. However in this case, the Pc officers were informed 2 days prior in which
they have an opportunity to obtain a valid search warrant from a judge given that there
was a probable cause, the vessel was known, amminudin was named, the date of arrival
was certain and yet the offcers did nothing. Whereas the provision in the bill of rights
was ignored, thus the warrant must be based on the probable cause, which should only be
determined by the judge to make the warrant valid. Comparing this case to the other case
in this list there existed a probable cause and a sufficient basis for a valid warrant of
arrest that may be issued by the judge. However in this case the Pc officers did not secure
a warrant when they indeed have two days prior to secure a warrant when they were
informed by the informat. In this case comparing it to the second case in this list, a
probable cause was not determined by the judge, but by the head of the PC officers that
conducted the search whilst in the Stonehill vs diokno case the probable cause was
insufficient. Comparing it to the case of People vs Malmstedt in that case there is no
sufficient time to secure a search warrant that’s why the search is valid pursuant to a
warrantless search whereas in this case there is clearly a sufficient time to obtain a search
warrant.

In the case of People vs Malmstedt, On may 11, 1989 Captain Alen Vasco, the
Commanding officer of NARCOM staitioned at Camp Dangwa, ordered his men to set up
a temporary checkpoint at Kilometer 14, Acop, Tublay, Mountain Province, for the
purpose of checking all vehicles coming from the Crodillera Region due to persistent
reports that vehicles coming from Sagada were transporting marijuana and other
prohibited drugs. Also in that same morning the said captain received an information that
a Caucasian coming from sagada had in his possession prohibited drugs. In the afternoon
the bus where Mikael Malmstedt was riding was stopped by NARCOM officers for
inspection. During he inspection Malmstedt was noticed with a bulge on his waist,
accused to be a gun. When asked for identification and passport Malmstedt did not
comply, whereas they required him to bring out the thing bulging from his waist and it
turned out to conatin hashish wrapped in brown packaging tape. Before going outside for
questioning he took the two travelling bags. When inspected, the bags contained hashish
inside of a stuffed toy. He was charged in violation of Section 4, Art 2 of RA 6425.
Comparing this case to the other cases in this list, there is no need for a search warrant in
this case for it is done pursuant to the rules of court in which a warrantless search
incident to a lawful arrest As stated earlier, and comparing it to the Amminudin case
there is no time in obtaining a search warrant in this case for, for the NARCOM were
informed in the morning of the said day they made the arrest. Comparing it to the other
cases in this case is a valid warrantless search applying also the stop and frisk where a
probable cause was was satisfied when the search was being conducted and there is
something bulging in the waist of malmstedt making it suspicious and him not giving any
identification when not asked

In the case of People vs Musa, On December 1989, the accused sold 2 wrappers
containing marijuana leaves to SGT Amado Ani in a buy bust operation in Zamboanga
city, the buy bust was planned since an informer told that the accused was enaged in
selling marijuana and a test buy was conducted the day prior tot the said buy bust
operation. During the buy bust operation Sgt Ani handed the money to Musa and Musa
entered his house to obtain the wrappings, upon returning to Sgt.Ani with the wrappings
he was arrested but the marked money Sgt Ani payed Musa cannot be found. The
NARCOM agents went inside to obtain the marked money but found more marijuana
leaves hidden in a plastic bag inside the kitchen. Musa was found guilty by the Court. On
appeal Musa questions the admissibility of the seized bag as evidence since it violates his
constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The supreme Court ruled
that the marijuana in the plastic bag is inadmissible because it did not satisfy the plain
view doctrine in which said agents did not know the contents of the plastic bag.
 Article 3, Section 3

Zulueta vs Court of Appeals[G.R No.107383, February 20, 1996]

& Ople vs Torres[ G.R No. 127685, July 23 1998]

In the case of zulueta vs court of appeals, Cecilia zulueta, who is the wife of Dr. Alfredo
Martin, entered into the clinic of her husband, in the presence of her mother, driver, and
private respondents secretary forcibly opened the drawers and cabinet and obtained 157
documents consisting of private correspondence between her husband and his alleged
paramours, greeting cards, cancelled checks, diaries, passport and photographs. She seeks
to use said documents as evidence in a case for legal separation and disqualification from
the practice of medicine which she filed against her husband. The Ruling of the Supreme
Court in this case is that pursuant to section 3 of article 3 of the 1987 constitution, said
documents seized is inadmissible in evidence for it is obtained in violation of Dr Martin’s
privacy when she ransacked said documents in his clinic without him consenting thus
being obtained through unlawful means and also not in any of the exceptions provided for
in paragraph 1 of section 3 of said article. In the case of Ople vs Torres, Petitioner, Bias
Ople prays to invalidate Administrative Order No. 308, which was issued by President
Fidel V. Ramos. One of the grounds is that it impermissibly intrudes on the citizenry’s
protected zone of privacy. Provided for in Section 4 of said Order is a Population
Reference Number as a common reference number to establish a linkage among
concerned agencies through the use of Biometrics technology and computer application
designs, whereas it provides confirmation of an individual’s identity through the use of
the individual’s own physiological and behavioral characteristics, however it does not
state what specific biological characteristics shall be used to identify people who will
seek its coverage.The possibility of abuse and misuse of the PRN, biometrics and
computer technology is no longer monitored or controlled by an individual on what can
be read or placed in his ID. Threatening the very abuses that the bill of rights seek to
prevent The Supreme Court declared the said order null and void for being
unconstitutional. The distinction on both cases is that in the first case only section 3 of
the bill of rights is being violated due to an unlawful action of the other party whereas in
the second case the said law was not only been declared null and void for violating one
specific provision of the Constitution but also several laws in the bill of rights. Said law
also fails to present valid and reasonable grounds for it being for the interest of the
general public. Thus when declared valid will be contrary to the bill of rights and the
protection of the citizens which is the prime duty of the state.