PARTS OF THE CONSTITUTION

1. Constitution of Government
-defines the powers of government and distributes it among various organs
*Executive Department; Legislative Department; Judiciary Department; Commissions

2. Constitution of Sovereignty
-provides for the methods and procedures for amending or revising the fundamental law

3. Constitution of Liberty
-guarantees the fundamental rights and liberties of citizens

ARTICLE III – BILL OF RIGHTS

1. Consti II is about trying to balance the individual rights or individual liberties on the one hand
and the state authority on the other.
2. Not all rights are found in the Bill of Rights. (e.g., right to marry, right to education,
employment, etc. are in the Constitution or sometimes they are in laws but not in the Bill of
Rights.)

*The framers in the Constitution decided that there are certain rights that are so fundamental
which are so important and they want to place it beyond the power of Congress, and so these
were put under Art. III, Bill of Rights.

Content/Arrangement of the 22 Sections:

1. Sections 1-11 Civil and Political Rights

a. Civil Rights are those which we enjoy as members of a political society
*freedom of religion
*right to form associations
*right to information on rights and other concerns
b. Political Rights allows us to participate in the affairs of government (indirectly)
*suffrage (Art. V)
*freedom of speech, freedom of association

2. Sections 12-22 – Rights of suspects, those on trial or those convicted of offenses (crime-related
rights or rights during trial
*e.g., rights during custodial investigation; rights under/against double jeopardy

3. The Bill of Rights do not guarantee Economic, Cultural and Social Rights
*These kind of rights are not actually in the Bill of Rights
Functions of the Constitution:

1. To establish government powers

2. To limit government powers
3. To define government powers
4. To distribute powers

Basic Concepts:

Bill – declaration which is made in the Constitution

Bill of Rights – the list of right that the State cannot interfere with
- It does not exhaust all rights of the citizens as other rights are embodied in statutes and laws
- Affirmative rights are not included in the Bill of Rights. It includes only negative rights.
- Purpose: The Bill of rights is a restriction on government power. The State cannot interfere.
- Structure: It is placed in the constitution because these rights are more important than the laws.
It puts rights in a higher category and limits the power of the government.

BASIC PRINCIPLES THAT GOVERN BILL OF RIGHTS

*Limitations on State Power (State Authority v. Individual Liberty)

1. Provisions of the Bill of Rights are SELF-EXECUTING (ready for use)

- they can immediately invoke the bill of rights anytime

2. They can be INVOKE AGAINST THE STATE (not against private individuals)
Bill of rights is intended to protect private individuals against government intrusions

3. BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS ARE SUPERIOR to property rights.

- human rights are imprescriptible

4. Its provisions have NO RETROACTIVE application.

- Unlike Penal Laws, Bill of Rights have no retroactive application

5. Provisions of the Bill of Rights are GENERALLY APPLICABLE TO ALIENS

6. Provisions of the Bill of Rights are GENERALLY SUBJECT TO RESTRICTIONS or are NOT
ABSOLUTE

Tests Applied by Supreme Court (to determine the validity of the imposed restrictions)

a. Strict Scrutiny Test

- applied in relation to statutes interfering with (1) fundamental rights (freedom of speech,
expression, assembly, religion, privacy, right to travel) or (2) to classifications based on race,
alienage or national origin and religion. (Calleja v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 252578, December
7, 2021)
 - Effect: In this instance, the court starts with the heavy presumption that the law is
unconstitutional. Thus, the government has the burden of proving that the restriction (i) is
necessary to achieve a compelling State interest, and (ii) is the least restrictive means to
protect such interest or the means chosen is narrowly tailored to accomplish the interest.
[Calleja v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 252578, December 7, 2021]

b. Intermediate Scrutiny Test

- applied when the challenge restriction (1) does NOT involve fundamental rights or (2) “suspect
classes” (classification based on gender, legitimacy, financial need and age). Also, if the restriction
on speech is content-neutral. Chavez v. Gonzales, 555 SCRA 441 (2008) (no heavy presumption of
unconstitutionality/substantial government interest) [Aquino v. Aquino, Dec. 7, 2021]

c. Rational Basis Test

- applies to all other subjects not covered by the first two tests.
- (Applies to exercise of police power that tend to restrict property right, or other rights which are
not regarded as fundamental).
- Lawful subject and lawful method

Section. 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor shall
any person be deprived the equal protection of laws

Not covered as “property”:

1. permits and licenses (SMGMC v. Balite Portal, 380 SCRA 145 (2002)
*A license to own and operate a firearm is only a privilege and not a right
2. private employment [Serrano v. NLRC, 323 SCRA 445 (1999)]
3. public office [COMELEC v. Cruz, 605 SCRA 167 (2009)]

A. Procedural Due Process

Due Process: Procedural vs. Substantive
Procedural due process relates to the mode of procedure which government agencies must follow in
the enforcement and application of laws. Substantive due process pertains to the intrinsic validity of the
law interfering with life, liberty and property.

Exempted from procedural due process:

a. rule-making/quasi-legislative power
Quezon City PTCA v. Department, 784 SCRA 505 (2016)

b. abatement of nuisance per se

*nuisance per se – can be abated without due process (without notice or hearing)
*nuisance by accidens – cannot be abated without due process

c. preventive suspension of employees – no need for notice or hearing;

o different from suspension as a penalty
Due Process in Judicial Proceedings:
1. There must be an impartial court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to determine the matter
before it;
2. Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the defendant and over the property
which is the subject matter of the proceeding;
3. The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard;
4. Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing

Due Process in Administrative Proceedings: (Ang Tibay v. CIR (1940))

1. The right to a hearing which includes the right of a party interested or affected to present his on case
and submit evidence in support thereof;
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
3. The decision must have something to support itself;
4. The evidence must be substantial;
5. The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing or at least contained on the
records and disclosed to the party affected;
6. The tribunal or judge must act on its own independent consideration and not simply accept the views
of a subordinate
7. The board or body should, in all controversial questions, render its decision in such a manner that the
parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved and the reason for the decision.

Two requirements:
1. Notice – to inform the party that proceeding is being taken against him
2. Hearing – to give him the opportunity to defend himself

Due Process in Discipline of Students;

1. The student must be informed in writing of the nature and cause of accusation against him;
2. He shall have the right to answer the charges against him with the assistance of counsel, if desired;
3. He shall be informed of the evidence against him;
4. He shall have the right to adduce evidence in his own behalf;
5. The evidence must be duly considered by the investigating body designated by the school official to
hear and decide the case. (ADM v. Capulong, 222 SCRA 644 (1993))

* In admin proceedings, there is no requirement of conducting a trial type procedure in order to

comply with the Due process clause. (People vs. Dela Merced)

*The person who decide the appeal should not be the same person who decide the case
*Publication is a requirement of due process
What is a vague law?

"A statute or act suffers from the defect of vagueness when it lacks comprehensible standards that
men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. It is
repugnant to the Constitution in two (2) respects: (1) it violates due process for failure to accord
persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid; and (2) it leaves law
enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the
Government muscle” [SPARK v. Quezon City, 835 SCRA 350 (2017)]

b. Substantive Due Process

Ways by which questions can be formulated:

(1) Is the law reasonable or is it an undue interference on life, liberty or property?
(2) Does the ordinance/statute violate due process?
(3) Is it a valid exercise of police power?
(4) Is the law valid?

POLICE POWER:
The power of the government to prescribe regulations to promote health, morals, education, good order
or safety and the general welfare of the people.

Tests for Valid Exercise of Police Power (Involving Property Rights):

Is the law reasonable? (Rational Basis Test]
1. That the interest of the public generally as distinguished from those of a particular class requires
such interference.
2. That the means are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose and not unduly
oppressive upon individuals. (US VS. TORIBIO)

1. Lawful subject
2. Lawful method
a. Rational relation between method and purpose [Ynot, Laguio]
b. Means chosen not unduly oppressive of another right

First Test: When is there a lawful subject?

1. -when it is intended to serve the interest of the public (Planters v. Fertiphil, 548 SCRA 485 (2008)
(fertilizer tax to make a private corporation viable);
2. -when it is related to a valid exercise of police power, i.e., to promote health, morals, education,
good order or safety and the general welfare of the people. Balacuit v. CFI, 163 SCRA 182 (1988) –
penalized theater owners who require full payment for children between 7-12 years old

Second Test: Lawful Method

When is there lawful method?
(a) means chosen are reasonably necessary for the accomplishment of the purpose; and
(b) not unduly oppressive upon individuals
B. Due Process and Equal Protection

Equal protection pertains to the requirement that laws must treat all persons or things similarly
situated alike, both as to privileges conferred and liabilities imposed

*Principle of non-discrimination; No favoritism.

Two ways of violating:

1. Classifying without basis (eye color/color blind]
2. Failure to classify when distinction exists

Two ways of justifying:

1. When the Constitution allows it; or [Nunez and Almonte] {Cruz v. COMELEC]
2. When it passes the 4 tests for a valid classification

Tests for Valid Classification: (Rational Basis Test]

1. It must rest on a substantial distinction;
2. It must be germane to the purpose of the law;
3. It must not be limited to existing conditions only: [Ormoc Sugar v. Ormoc City)
4. It must apply equally to members of the same class. (Ichong v. Hernandez – failed attempt)

Strict Scrutiny test: Applied in relation xxxx (2) to classifications based on race, alienage or national
origin and religion. Southern Hemisphere v. Anti-Terrorism Council, 632 SCRA 5 (2010)

Intermediate Scrutiny: When the challenged [restriction classification] does NOT involve “fundamental
rights” or suspect classes (classification based on gender, legitimacy, financial need and age). Chavez v.
Gonzales, 555 SCRA 441 (2008) (no heavy presumption of unconstitutionality/substantial government
interest)

*The equal protection clause does not forbid discrimination as to things that are different (women are
more likely than men to be victims of violence) – Garcia v. Drilon

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 SEARCH and SEIZURE CLAUSE

Article III, Sec. 2. 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.

*The 1987 Constitution judicialized issuance of search and arrest warrants

*Under new constitution, only judges can issue search and arrest warrants.

Calleja v. Executive Secretary, GR No. 252578, Dec. 7, 2021

How did the Supreme Court justify the conferment of the power to issue arrest orders to the Anti-
Terror Council, a non-judicial entity?

1. A person may be arrested by law enforcement officers only under the instances contemplated in Rule
9.2., arrest in flagrante delicto, arrest in hot pursuit and arrest of escapees, which mirrors Sec. 5, Rule
113 of the Rules of Court.

Arrest, Search and Seizure

1. Arrest Warrants
2. Warrantless Arrests
3. Search Warrants
4. Warrantless Searches
5. Exclusionary Rule

A. Arrest Warrants

Procedure:

1. File a complaint before the Office of the City or Provincial Prosecutor, attaching:

a. Affidavit-complaint
b. Affidavit of witnesses
c. Police Blotter
d. Medical/Death Certificate

2. Prosecutor either determines probable cause to file case in court if the offense is punishable
with prision correccional medium or less, but if it is higher he gives respondent 10 days to submit
evidence.

3. Under both situations, if he (prosecutor) finds no probable cause, he dismisses the case, but if
he finds one, he files an information in court.
4. The judge reviews his (prosecutor’s) findings and if the judge finds no probable cause, he
dismisses it. But if he finds one, he issues an Arrest Warrant, unless the case falls under the
Summary Procedure

Probable Cause - (are facts and circumstances) sufficient ground to engender a well-founded belief
that a crime has been committed and the respondent is probably guilty thereof, and should be held
for trial. Sec. 1, Rule 112, Rules of Court

DOJ Circular No. 16, Feb. 24, 2023:

Sec. 9. Consistent with the objectives of DC Nos. 008 and 008-A, no case shall henceforth be filed
with (first level courts if there is no reasonable certainty of conviction for the same.)

Sec. 2. There is reasonable certainty of conviction when a prima facie case exists based on the
evidence at hand including but not limited to witnesses documentary evidence, real evidence, and
the like, and such evidence, on its own and if left uncontroverted by accused, shall be sufficient to
establish all the elements of the crime or offense charged, and consequently warrant a conviction
beyond reasonable doubt.

Questions:

1. Must the judge personally examine complainant and his witnesses?

People v. Grey, 625 SCRA 523 (2010)

Ans. NO need for arrest warrant. (But this is necessary for search warrants.)
Why is this allowed?
Because the judge needs only to determine whether there is a probable cause based on the
records. It is for convenience.

So many criminal cases are being filed with the judge. I think in Davao City, I think every raffle
day, they can receive as many as 80 cases in a week. So if the judge calls all of those witnesses,
he will do nothing else but examine all the witnesses. However, search warrants are very few.

2. Can the judge rely only on the certification of the prosecutor that there is probable cause for
the offense? Lim v. Felix, 194 SCRA 292 (1991), Cojuangco v. Sandigan, 300 SCRA 367 (1998);
Abdula v. Guiani, 326 SCRA 1 (2000); Talingdan v. Eduarte, 366 SCRA 559 (2002)

Ans. NO. The judge who issues the arrest warrant by relying on the resolution of the fiscal
commits grave abuse of discretion.
The judge must personal review the evidence attached to the records of the case. He cannot rely
on the conclusion of the fiscal. If he issues the warrant without going through the evidence, he
can be charged with grave abuse of discretion and the warrant is void.
 3. Can a judge issue arrest warrants against “John Does”? Pangandaman v. Casar, 159 SCRA 599
[Warrants of arrests should particularly describe the person or persons to be seized.]
Exception: If the “John Doe” is particularly described as “to distinguish him or set him apart
from others.”

A.M. No. 21-06-08-SC: Body Camera Rule (for Arrest Warrant)

Rule 1, Sec. 1. Upon finding probable cause, the trial court shall issue an arrest warrant with an order
requiring the use of at least one body camera and one alternative recording device or a minimum of two
devices or such number as necessary to capture the relevant incidents during execution.

In case of unavailability of body-worn cameras, the law enforcement officers who will implement
the warrant shall file an ex parte motion, requesting authority to use alternative recording devices for
justifiable reasons.

-Effect- “NOT render arrest unlawful or evidence obtained inadmissible” (Facts relating to arrest
may be prove by other evidence/but police may be held in contempt]

B. Warrantless Arrests

Valid Warrantless Arrests:

1. When in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is
attempting to commit an offense; [Flagrante Delicto Rule]

2. Amended: When an offense has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it.
[Freshly Committed Rule]

Original Provision: When an offense has in fact been committed, and he has personal knowledge of
facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it; and [Freshly Committed Rule]

3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from penal establishment or place
where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped
while being transferred from one confinement to another. (RULES OF COURT)

1. FLAGRANTE DELICTO RULE

In the act of committing a crime: 1. has committed, 2. is actually committing, or 3. is attempting to

commit an offense

* Section 5(a) refers to an  in flagrante delicto  arrest, which requires the following for it to be valid: (a)
the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (b) such overt act is done in the presence or within
the view of the arresting officer ("overt act test") – People vs. Manalo
2. “Hot Pursuit” or “Freshly Committed

Requisites: Has just been committed – Computed from the time of commission of the crime up to the
time of arrest

1. Time element: -FOR PURPOSES OF EXAMS – 24 HOURS IS THE CUT OFF

2. Probable cause / [personal knowledge]

“He has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances
that the person to be arrested has committed it

Tests: (a) A crime has been committed (b) victim of witness/es identifies the suspect.
Rejected by Fr. Bernas: “Thus, a police officer who learns about the recent commission of the
crime merely from a report does not possess the ‘personal knowledge’ needed to justify a
warrantless arrest.” See, Joaquin G. Bernas, THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES: A COMMENTARY 181 (1996).

C. Search Warrants

Requisites for a Valid Search Warrant:

1. It must be based upon probable cause;

2. The probable cause must be determined personally by the judge;
3. The determination must be made after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and
the witnesses he may produce;
4. It must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

*Probable Cause – more likely than not

*Probable cause are such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent
man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the
offense are in the place sought to be searched.

Q. To determine probable cause in issuing search warrants, must the judge examine the applicant
AND the witnesses? Held: No.

If the Judge is satisfied that there is a probable cause after examining the witnesses, he can proceed with
the issuance of the search warrant. If he finds probable cause after he examined the applicant, that will
be fine. The Supreme Court now is very clear that once the judge finds that there is a probable cause,
he can only examine witnesses as to establish the probable cause. (People v. Gabiosa, G.R. No.
248395, January 29, 2020)

* The facts and circumstances that would show probable cause must be the best evidence that could be
obtained under the circumstances. (People v. Hon. Estrada; People v. Pastrana)
*Search warrant is void insofar as it is issued without probable cause as to its existence but it is valid as
to the object where there is probable cause. (People v. Salanguit)

Specific Description in Search Warrant

A search warrant must specifically describe:
1. The place to be searched;
2. The objects to be seized; and
3. Issue only for one specific offense
Otherwise, they are regarded as “general warrants” and are void.

Rules on description of place illustrated:

1. If the place is under the control of one person, a general description may be sufficient (Yao, Sr:
Masagana 1 hectare compound, except PICOP – 155 hectares/over 1,000 structure]

*what is important is that the placed to be searched can be distinguished in relation to the other
places in the community

2. If the place is a compound occupied by various persons, the warrant must specifically indicate
the unit to be searched [Estrada -5,000 square meters, with 15 structures (Applies to apartment
units, rooms in a house]

3. The police can only search the place described in the warrant, not an adjoining one. [Pp. v. CA)
People v. Francisco, 387 SCRA 569 (2002) Del Castillo v. People, 664 SCRA 430 (2012)

4. Once the place is specifically described, there is no need to name the occupant or owner.

Rules on Description of Objects

1. Objects need not be described in precise details

The law does not require that the things to be seized must be described in precise and minute detail as to
leave no room for doubt on the part of the searching authorities. (Kho v. Makalintal)

2. Minor discrepancies in between the objects described in the warrant from those actually taken do
not nullify the warrant for as long as they are of the same kind and nature

3. Where a warrant contains a specific description of some objects and a general description of others,
the entire warrant is not voided
- search warrant is severable, and those items not particularly described may be cut off without
destroying the whole warrant. (Uy v. BIR)

4. Objects not specifically described in the warrant but are considered contraband may be seized in
plain view and are admissible in court.
Specific doctrines on “one offense” rule:

1. What is the status of a Warrant issued for more than one offense?

It is a total nullity. Once there is more than one offense, then the warrant will be totally null and
void and all objects taken therein can no longer be admitted in evidence.

*Issuance of a scatter-shot warrant is totally null and void (People v. Simbajon)

2. When related offenses are punished by different provisions of the same law, issuance of a
single warrant is justified [Dischoso: marijuana, shabu and paraphernalia, Prudente: Violation
of PD No. 1866

3. Where there are several counts of one specific offense, issuance of one search warrant is
sufficient [Columbia] See also SPO4 Laud v. People, 741 SCRA 239 (2014). “6 human remains
inside the Laud Compound in Magtood, Maa, Davao City.”

Territorial Validity: Rule 3, Sec. 2: Body Camera Rule

Sec. 2. Except for the Jurisdiction of the Special Commercial Courts to issue search warrants involving
intellectual property rights violations, the Executive Judges and, whenever they are on official leave of
absence or are not physically present in the station, the Vice-Executive Judges of the Regional Trial
Courts shall have authority to act on applications for search warrants to be implemented within their
judicial region, filed by the National Bureau of Investigation, the Philippine National Police, the Anti-
Crime Task Force, the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, and the Bureau of Customs, for search
warrants involving heinous crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession of firearms and ammunitions, as
well as violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, the Anti-Money Laundering Act of
2001, the Customs Modernization and Tariff Act, and other relevant laws that may later be enacted by
and included in these Rules by the Supreme Court.

The applications shall be personally endorsed by the heads of such agencies and shall particularly
describe the places to be searched and/or the properties or things to be seized as prescribed in the
Rules of Court. They shall also state the compelling reasons for filing the application with these courts.
The Executive Judges and Vice-Executive judges concerned shall issue the warrants, if justified, which
may be served in places outside the territorial jurisdiction but within the judicial regions of these courts.

Territorial Validity: AM No. 21-06-08-SC

1. For ordinary crimes, any court within whose territorial jurisdiction the crime was committed;
[Sony Computer] People v. Castillo, 807 SCRA 77 (2016) –seems modified)

Any court may issue a search warrant even though it has no jurisdiction over the offense
allegedly committed, provided that all the requirements for the issuance of such warrant are
present. (People v. Castillo)

2. For Intellectual Property Cases, Special Commercial Courts (within their territorial jurisdiction)
 3. For heinous crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession of firearms, Dangerous Drugs Act, Anti-
Money Laudering Act, Customs Modernization and Tarrif Act, Executive Judges or in his
absence, Vice Executive Judges, effective within their judicial regions (filed by PNP, NBI, PDEA,
Anti-Crime Task Force and Bureau of Customs (personally endorsed by their heads)

Must state compelling reasons why they applied “with these courts” (Apparently if it is to be
implemented outside their territory, but within the judicial region.”

*Compelling reasons are not needed if within the territory of the Trial Court. If outside territory,
compelling reasons must be stated.

Matters relating to execution

Dabon v. People

One of those parameters set by law is Section 8 of Rule 126, is that the search “shall be made xxx in the
presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter,
two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.”

AM No. 21-06-08-SC

Rule 3, Sec. 5. At least one body camera and one alternative recording device or such number as
necessary to capture the relevant incidents during execution of the warrant shall be worn by members
of the team conducting the search by virtue of a warrant. Should a body camera be unavailable, at
least 2 alternative recording devices must be used. xxx

Sec. 7. Effect of Failure to Observe--- Failure to observe the requirement of using body-worn cameras or
alternative recording devices, without reasonable grounds, during the execution of the search warrants
shall render the evidence obtained inadmissible for the prosecution of the offense for which the search
warrant was applied.

D. Warrantless Searches

Rule: Warrantless Searches are generally void and objects taken as a consequence are inadmissible in
evidence, but

• 1. Failure to object to evidence during trial results to waiver

• 2. Only the person whose right was invaded can invoke the illegality of the search [Stonehill]
(personal right)
Valid warrantless searches:

1. Incident to lawful arrest (arrest must be lawful for the search to be lawful)

Rules: 1. Contemporaneous to arrest

2. Place under his immediate control

*Unlawful arrest – if violation only of an offense payable by a fine.

2. Consented search

Principles-
1. Only the person whose right has been invaded can give consent [Asis, Damaso]
2. Consent has to be given expressly
3. The search cannot extend beyond the purpose for which consent was given [Layague]

*Consent should be "unequivocal, specific, and intelligently given, uncontaminated by any duress
or coercion. The fact that accused failed to object to the search does not amount to consent.

3. Plain view

Requisites for Search in Plain View:

1. There must be a prior justification for the intrusion (e.g. there is a valid warrant)
2. The police inadvertently (accidentally) came across the evidence;
3. The illegality must be immediately apparent ( PEOPLE VS. MUSA ) /Veroy/Elamparo

*Once the valid portion of the warrant has been executed, the “plain view” doctrine can no
longer serve as valid basis for admitting the other items subsequently found. (People v.
Salanguit)

4. Stop and frisk

It must be based on probable cause, that is that the person is acting suspiciously, which must
not be based on the subjective perception of the police. His unusual behavior must suggest a
crime. Reports do not constitute probable cause.

*Objective Suspicion
*Act of running away does not equal to valid suspicion (People v. Villareal)

*Terry Search “A search whose object is to determine the identity of a suspicions individual or to
maintain the status quo while the police seeks to obtain more information.”

Requisites for Valid Terry Search:

(1) it should be allowed only on the basis of the police officer's reasonable suspicion, in light of
his or her experience, that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he/she
is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous;
(2) the search must only be a carefully limited search of the outer clothing; and
 (3) conducted for the purpose of discovering weapons which might be used to assault him/her or
other persons in the area.
5. Moving vehicles

1. Vehicles may be stopped at check points and subjected to visual search only [Valmonte v. De
Villa, 178 SCRA 211 (1989)
2. Extensive search is permissible only if there is probable cause; [Valmonte v. De Villa, 185 SCRA
665 (1990)
3. Probable cause can be a report that a contraband is being transported PLUS “other
circumstances” (report + suspicious behavior of the suspect)

*In search of moving vehicles, the target is not a specific person, but a moving vehicle which was
intentionally used as a means to transport illegal items (People v. Comprado)

6. Custom laws

Requisites for Search under Customs Laws:

1. It must be conducted by persons exercising police authority under the custom laws;
2. There must be probable cause;
3. It is limited to persons, vehicles, vessels, aircrafts, land enclosure, warehouse, stores houses;
4. Only dutiable or prohibited goods can be seized. (PAPA VS. MAGO ) Bar Question: 1991, No. 8

*In here, mere report constitutes probable cause.

*Regional Trial Courts are devoid of any competence to pass upon the validity of seizure and
forfeiture proceedings in the Bureau of Customs.

7. Exigency

*Under the exigency of the moment, a search warrant could be lawfully dispensed with. (e.g. in
the course of coup d’etat – People v. De Gracia)

8. Airport/Seaport Security
(People v. Johnson)
-” Reduced expectation of privacy”
-minimum intrusiveness
-gravity of safety interest involved

9. Prison search / Jail Security

This search is part of police standard operating procedure, and is recognized as part of
precautionary measures by the police to safeguard the safety of the detainees as well as the
over-all security of the jail premises.

10. Private individual

The search and seizure conducted by a private person is without government intervention and
hence, the constitutional protection against unreasonable search and seizure does not apply
(People v. Bongcarawan)
 11. Administrative searches
Searches in COMELEC Check Points

Sec. 6. Guidelines on the Establishment of COMELEC Checkpoints. –The following guidelines must be
observed on establishment of COMELEC checkpoints: xxx

c. Upon approach to any COMELEC checkpoint, the team manning it must require the motorist to
slow down, as well as courteously request to dim the vehicle headlights and turn on cabin lights. In a
checkpoint inquiry, the occupants cannot be compelled to step out of a vehicle;

d. Only visual search is required. The search which is normally permissible is limited to visual
search where the officer simply looks into the vehicle and flashes a light therein, without opening the
car’s door;

e. No person may be subjected to a physical or body search in the absence of any reasonable
ground to believe that a person has just committed, is about to commit or is committing a crime;

f. The public is not obliged to open the glove compartment, trunk or bags. The personnel manning
the checkpoint cannot compel the motorist to open the trunk or glove compartment of the vehicle or any
package contained therein;

g. Ordinary/routine questions may be asked with courtesy. Check point may involve only a brief
detention of travelers during which the vehicle’s occupants are required to answer a brief question or
two;

E. Exclusionary Rule: Meaning and Scope

“Fruit of the Poisonous Tree” Doctrine:

Meaning – Objects taken cannot be used in evidence.

Questions:
(1) Does it automatically mean acquittal?
(2) Does it necessarily mean that you are entitled to the return of the object? No. Contrabands
can be taken.
(3) When will the exclusionary rule apply?
a. Illegal warrantless searches
b. Void search warrants
c. Valid search warrants but improperly implemented, such as no witnesses to the search or
no body camera and alternative recording device (AM No. 21-06-08-SC)
Note: Stonehill case- The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is a personal right, and
it can be invoke only by the person whose right was invaded.
Provisions with exclusionary rules: 2, 3, 12 & 17
 Section. 3.
The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the
court, or when public safety or order requires as prescribed by law

Preferred/Fundamental Rights:
Sec. 3. Right to Privacy
Sec. 4. Free Speech and Assembly
Sec. 5. Freedom of Religion
Sec. 6. Right to Travel

Consequence:

1. Validity of laws restricting them not subject to the reasonable basis test, but the strict scrutiny
test
2. As a rule, the government must show compelling state interest in restricting them and the rule
should be narrowly tailored to protect the interest only

Section 3. Privacy of Communications

(1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of
the court, or when public safety or order requires as prescribed by law.

(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding

Who can restrict?

1. Upon lawful order of the court (search warrant, probable cause, particular description)
2. When prescribed by law as public order and safety requires

Laws/Rules intended to Protect Privacy:

1. RA No. 4200- Anti-Wire Tapping Law

2. RA No. 14015 – Secrecy of Bank Deposit Law
3. RA No. 10173 --Data Privacy Act . 10173
4. Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data

1. RA 4200 – [Anti-Wire Tapping Act]

Section 1.  It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any
private communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or
arrangement, to secretly overhear or record such communication or spoken word by using a
device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape
recorder, or however otherwise described.
NOTE: It is similar to Sec. 3 in the sense that they are both exclusionary rules, but it goes further
because it punishes. It is narrower in that it covers only oral communication.
 2. R.A. 1405. Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law:
Section 2.    All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the
Philippines including investments in bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines, its
political subdivisions and its instrumentalities, are hereby considered as of an absolutely
confidential nature and may not be examined, inquired or looked into by any person,
government official, bureau or office, except upon written permission of the depositor, or in
cases of impeachment, or upon order of a competent court in cases of bribery or dereliction of
duty of public officials, or in cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter
of the litigation.

3. RA No. 10173 – Data Privacy Act of 2012

SEC. 2.  Declaration of Policy. –  It is the policy of the State to protect the fundamental human
right of privacy, of communication while ensuring free flow of information to promote
innovation and growth. The State recognizes the vital role of information and communications
technology in nation-building and its inherent obligation to ensure that personal information in
information and communications systems in the government and in the private sector are
secured and protected.

Definition of Terms: Protected:

1. Personal Information
(g)  Personal information  refers to any information whether recorded in a material form or not,
from which the (1) identity of an individual is apparent or (2) can be reasonably and directly
ascertained by the entity holding the information, or (3) when put together with other
information would directly and certainly identify an individual.

2. Sensitive Personal Information

Sensitive personal information  refers to personal information:

(1) About an individual’s race, ethnic origin, marital status, age, color, and religious,
philosophical or political affiliations;
(2) About an individual’s health, education, genetic or sexual life of a person, or to any
proceeding for any offense committed or alleged to have been committed by such person, the
disposal of such proceedings, or the sentence of any court in such proceedings;
(3) Issued by government agencies peculiar to an individual which includes, but not limited to,
social security numbers, previous or current health records, licenses or its denials, suspension or
revocation, and tax returns; and
(4) Specifically established by an executive order or an act of Congress to be kept classified.

Q. Are all judicial records matters of public concern to which the public can demand access? NO.

4. Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data:

SECTION 1. Habeas Data. The writ of habeas data is a remedy available to any person whose
right to privacy in life, liberty or security is violated or threatened by an unlawful act or omission
of a public official or employee, or of a private individual or entity engaged in the gathering,
collecting or storing of data or information regarding the person, family, home and
correspondence of the aggrieved party.
 [A REMEDY AVAILABLE TO PROTECT THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY AS AGAINST THOSE GATHERING,
COLLECTING OR STORING ONE’S PERSONAL INFORMATION.]
Law restricting the right to privacy:
1. Anti-Terror Law of 2020, RA No. 11479
SEC. 16. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and Recording of Communications. – The provisions
of Republic Act No. 4200 (Anti-wire Tapping Law) to the contrary notwithstanding, a law enforcement
agent or military officer, upon a written order of the Court of Appeals, may secretly wire-tap, listen to,
intercept, read, screen, surviel and record, or collect with the use of any mode, form, kind or type of
electronic or other surveillance equipment or intercepting and tracking devices, or with the use of any
other suitable ways and means for that purpose, any communication, message, conversation, discussion,
or spoken or written words between members of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist
organization, association, or group of persons or of any person charged with or suspected of the crime of
terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism. (not allowed: lawyers-clients, doctors-patients, journalists
and their sources)

*The test to determine violation of the right which courts use is the “reasonable expectation of
privacy.” This is two-pronged: (1) whether by his conduct the individual has exhibited an expectation of
privacy; and (2) this expectation is one that society recognizes as reasonable. (Cadajas vs. People)

*Sections 1, 2, 3, 6, 8 and 17 of the Bill of Rights in various ways protect the right to privacy. As it is a
fundamental right, it is the burden of the government to show that its restriction is justified by some
compelling state interest and the restriction is narrowly drawn to protect that interest. (Ople v. Torres)

Three Categories of Privacy

1. Decisional Privacy
- involves the right to independence in making certain important decision

2. Informational Privacy
- interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters
- has two aspects: the right not to have private information disclosed, and the right to live freely
without surveillance and intrusion

Two-fold test

1. Subjective Test - where one claiming the right must have an actual or legitimate expectation of
privacy over a certain matter
2. Objective Test - where his or her expectation of privacy must be one society is prepared to
accept as objectively reasonable
3. Locational or situational privacy pertains to privacy that is felt in physical space. It may be
violated through an act of trespass or through unlawful search. (Taken from concurring opinion
of J. Leonen in Cadajas v. People, id.)
 Section 4.

No law shall be passed abridging freedom of speech, of expression, or of the press or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances.

Freedom of speech, expression and of the press is the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter
of public interest without censorship or punishment.

1. Forms of Restraints on Expression:

1. Prior Restraint

Prior restraint is government restriction on forms of expression in advance of actual publication or

dissemination. (censorship/system of licensing and permits)

2. Subsequent Punishment

Subsequent punishment is the restraint on freedom of speech, expression and of the press that comes
after the exercise of said rights in the form of criminal prosecutions for libel, sedition, inciting to
rebellion, closure of newspapers and TV/radio stations, citations for contempt or suits for damages, tax
evasion.

Chavez v. Gonzales, 555 SCRA 441 (2008): Do press statements of high officials threatening the press
with prosecution, even if not reduced to formal orders or directives, forms of prior restraint? YES.

2. Tests on Restrictions

Old Tests:

1. Clear and Present Danger - Whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such
nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evil that the
legislature has a right to prevent. This is the hardest to satisfy; the harder you can be convicted.
2. Balancing of Interest Test – used by the SC in the issue of contempt
3. Dangerous Tendency Test – punishes the tendency only

New Tests:

1. Strict Scrutiny Test

2. Intermediate Scrutiny Test
The exercise of prior restraint bears a presumption of unconstitutionality,
But distinguish if:
1. content-based – (heavy presumption)
2. content-neutral – (still presumed unconstitutional but not qualified by “heavy”)
Content-Neutral v. Content-Based

1. Content-based- imposed on content of the speech, suffers from a heavy presumption of

unconstitutionality and should be subject to the STRICT SCUTINY TEST (the clear and present danger rule)

2. Content-Neutral – One that is imposed not on the content of the speech but on the time, mode or
manner or place of the exercise of the right and should be subject to the INTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY TEST
(CHAVEZ V. GONZALES, 555 SCRA 441 (2008) (intermediate review)]

 What is the effect if the court applies the strict scrutiny test? Answer: In this instance, the court
starts with the heavy presumption that the law is unconstitutional. Thus, the government has
the burden of proving that the restriction (i) is necessary to achieve a compelling State interest,
and (ii) is the least restrictive means to protect such interest or the means chosen is narrowly
tailored to accomplish the interest.

(Compelling state interest=clear and present danger)

 What is the effect when the court applies the Intermediate Scrutiny Test (O’brien Test)?
-No heavy presumption of unconstitutionality
-The state must only show a substantial governmental interest

Intermediate Scrutiny/O’Brien Test: “A government regulation is sufficiently justified

[1] if it is within the constitutional power of the Government;
[2] if it furthers an important or substantial governmental interest;
[3] if the governmental interest is unrelated to the suppression of free expression; and
[4] if the incidental restriction is no greater than is essential to the furtherance of that interest.”

Facial Challenge v. “As Applied Challenge”

A facial invalidation is an examination of the entire law, pinpointing its flaws and defects, not only on
the basis of its actual operation to the parties, but also on the assumption that its very existence may
cause others not before the court to refrain from constitutionally protected speech or activities.

- you can only raise the ground of overbreadth and vagueness.

Applied Challenge considers only extant facts affecting real litigants

- the petitioner who claims a violation of his constitutional right can raise any constitutional
ground, e.g., not a valid exercised of police power, lack of procedural due process, violation of
privacy, over-breadth, or vagueness, contains more than one subject, violates separation power
doctrine, invalid delegation, contrary to any constitutional provision
- petitioner must establish the four (4) requisites for the exercise of the power of judicial review,
but it is not a requirement in a facial challenge. Four requisites: (1) Actual case or controversy;
(2) Locus standi or standing; (3) necessity; (4) first opportunity
1. Overbreadth doctrine, under which a law may be struck down as unconstitutional if it achieves a
governmental purpose by means that are unnecessarily broad and thereby invade the area of protected
freedoms.  In Philippine jurisprudence, originally, it had special application only to free-speech cases
under non-penal laws.  However, the prevailing doctrine, as espoused in  Disini, is that penal statues may
be facially challenged under the overbreadth doctrine to counter the "chilling effect" on protected
speech that comes from statutes violating free speech because a person who does not know whether his
speech constitutes a crime under an overbroad or vague law may simply restrain himself from speaking
in order to avoid being charged of a crime.

2. Vagueness doctrine- a law is constitutionally defective  when  it lacks comprehensible standards that
men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. It is
repugnant to the Constitution in two respects: (1) it violates due process for failure to accord persons,
especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid; and (2) it leaves law enforcers
unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary Hexing of the Government
muscle.

Q. When is a facial challenge on the validity of a statute allowed? Answer: The rule established in our
jurisdiction is, only statutes on free speech, religious freedom, and other fundamental rights may be
facially challenged. Under no case may ordinary penal statutes be subjected to a facial challenge. SPARK
v. Quezon City, 835 SCRA 350 (2017)

Petition and Assembly

Freedom of assembly is the right of the people to meet peaceably for consultation and discussion of
matters of public concern.

Test: Clear and Present Danger to Public Safety, Order, Morals, etc.