CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 NOTES – 03/05/22

ARTICLE 3 – BILL OF RIGHTS

BILL OF RIGHTS
 The sanctuary of protection for all persons, citizens or non-citizens, against any and all abuses of power and
authority by the government or any public officials and employees, or even against any unwarranted violation of
such rights by any other person.
 Composed of 22 sections
 Enumerates all the rights guaranteed to each and every person living under the roof of our land.
 Indicated the rights of the accused wherein his guilt should be proven beyond reasonable doubt. Even if there is
a reason to believe that he should be held liable of an offense, still the constitution guarantees that no person
shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall any person be denied with the
equal protection of the law.

BASIC PRINCIPLE TO CONSIDER IN THE STUDY OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS:

 The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
o Constitution is the direct legislation of the people acting in their sovereign capacity.
o An ordinary statute cannot be passed to abolish or make a change in our Constitution.
o Statute – it is enacted pursuant to the constitutional provisions.
o “Supreme law of the land” – symbol and monument of the people’s will.
o Changes in the constitution, at all times, must be ratified by the people themselves.
o In the Constitution, the fundamental powers of the state are limited and defined by which these powers
are distributed among the several departments of the government for the useful exercise and for the
benefit of everybody.
o The Constitution must be obeyed by all regardless of color of skin and even if you are the highest official
of the land.
o Supreme Court – guardian of the Constitution. Questions pertaining to the provisions of the
Constitution, the SC has the final say about it. Decision of the SC is binding upon all persons sojourning in
the PH.

DUE PROCESS OF LAW (Section 1, Article 3, 1987 Constitution)

 Due process clause: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”
 Equal protection clause: “Nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.”
 Means fair play
 “Strike but hear me first”; “You will be given your day in court.”
 Dartmouth College vs Woodward (4 Wheaton 518)
o A law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and renders judgment only after
trial.
 US vs Ling Su Fan (10 Phil 104)
o Due process was interpreted to mean that there is law prescribed in narrowing the powers of the
legislative department of the government.
o The law that is reasonable in its operation, law that is enforced according to the regular methods of
procedure prescribed, and law is applicable alike to all people of the state or to all of its citizens.
 Due process of law does not necessarily mean a judicial proceeding in regular courts.
 Guaranty of due process viewed in its procedural aspect requires no particular form of procedure. It implies due
notice to the individual of the proceedings, an opportunity to defend himself and the problem of the propriety
of the deprivation under the circumstances presented, must be resolved in a manner consistent with fairness.
 It means essentially a fair and impartial and reasonable opportunity for the preparation of the defense.
 This is to prevent undue encroachment against the life, liberty, and property of individuals.
 To secure the individual from arbitrary exercise of powers of government.
 Unrestrained by the established principles of private rights and distributed justice.
 To protect the property from confiscation by legislative enactments, from seizure, forfeiture, or destruction
without the trial and conviction by the ordinary modes of judicial procedures.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
 Roman period -> Law of 12 Tables -> Latin maxims (developed in Spain and then handed down in PH
 NOTE: PH Legal System continuously use these Latin maxims.
 Simplicity – basic aim/main aspect of Latin maxims as to why they are used.

POLITICAL LAW LATIN MAXIMS:

 Salus populi est suprema lex – The welfare of the people is the supreme law.
  Parens patriae – Guardian of the rights of the people.
 De jure government – One that has the rightful title but it has no power or control over it.
o Example: Revolutionary government – control of power is transferred between revolutionists.
 De facto government – You are exercising the power but you have no legal title over it.
 Par in parem non habet imperium – One state cannot have dominion over another state; EQUAL; Used in
International Law.
 Potestas delegate non potest delegare – What has been delegated cannot be further delegated.
 Ad interim appointment – One made by the President during recess in Congress.
 Jus soli – Citizenship by place of birth
 Jus sanguinis – Citizenship by blood relationship; Utilized principle in the PH.
 Animus revertende – Intent to return (as in domicile/residence wherein the person has a place where it
habitually resides, though might be absent at times, but has the intention to return).
 Nullum tempus occurit regi – No time runs against the king.

CIVIL LAW LATIN MAXIMS:

 Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas – The owner of the thing cannot make use thereof in such a manner as to
injure the rights of a third person. Related to “your right ends when the right of another begins”.
 Negotiorum gestio – an authorized management
 Solution indebiti – unjust enrichment
 Res perit domino – That thing perishes with the owner
 Jus possidendi – The right to possess a property
 Jus abutendi – The right to abuse or consume
 Jus utendi – Right to use
 Jus fruendi – Right to the fruits
 Jus disponendi – Right to dispose
 Jus vindicandi – Right to recover
 Jus accessiones – Right to accessories
 Caveat emptor – Buyers beware
 Notice in rem – A notice to the whole world that the property is subject to a mortgage.
 Aedificum solo credit – The building follows the land/lot.

CRIMINAL LAW LATIN MAXIMS:

 Ignoratia legis non (or neminem) excusat – Ignorance of the law excuses no one from compliance therewith.
 Dura lex sed lex – The law may be harsh but it is the law.
 Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege – There is no crime when there is no law punishing it.
 Mala in se – The act is the crime in itself.
 Mala prohibita – That particular act becomes a crime only because there is a law that punishes it.
 Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea – The act in itself does not make a man guilty unless his intentions were
so.
 Actus me envito factus non est meus actus – An act done by me against my own will is not my act.
 Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat – He who alleges that he who denies shall prove the same.
o The burden of proof rests upon the person who alleges, not the one who denies.
 FIST – Force, Intimidation, Strategy, Threat/Treachery

STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION LATIN MAXIMS:

 Ratio legis – Interpretation according to spirit.

PERSON
 Persons protected under due process of law: ALL PERSONS (citizens or aliens alike)
 Artificial persons or Juridical persons – created by statute or law
o Private corporations – YES, the are entitled to due process as well but only insofar as their properties or
property rights are concerned.

Q: Is deprivation per se unconstitutional?

A: Deprivation per se is NEVER unconstitutional. It only becomes so if that deprivation is done without the observance of
due process of law.

LIFE
 Not merely a right to the preservation of life but it includes the security of the limbs and organs of the human
body against any unlawful act or harm.
 Right to life – it is a constitutional guaranty that includes:
o Right to pursue a lawful profession or occupation
o Right to convey ideas
 o Exercise freedom of choice
o Exercise freedom of religion
o Exercise freedom of political beliefs/persuasion
o Right not to be dismembered of any part of your body
o Any right to make your life worth living…

Q: Supposing a person is sentenced to die through death penalty, is there a violation of due process of law?
A: It depends. If an accused has been lawfully arrested after committing a heinous crime, has been lawfully charged
before a court of jurisdiction, has been given his day in court, and eventually a lawful judgment was rendered against
him to suffer death penalty, then he will be killed without violating the due process clause. If deprivation is done on the
part of the state or any of its employees, it must be done in the observance of due process of law. But if summary killing
is done, there is violation of one’s right to life.

Q: A pregnant woman suffering from a serious illness, came to a point where the family and doctor has to resort into an
operation/surgery where they will take the unborn, and in the process, the unborn child will be killed, is there a violation
in the right to life of the unborn?
A: NO, there is no violation. The method is called therapeutic abortion and it is allowed. The situation presents two evils
and choosing to preserve the life of the mother is the lesser evil among the two. But if taking of the unborn is meant to
avoid shame or public scandal, then it is a violation of the unborn child’s right to life.

LIBERTY
 Not only a right of a citizen to be free from mere physical restraint of his person, but the term is used to
embrace the right of the citizen:
o To be free in engagement of his faculties in all lawful ways
o To live and work where he will
o To pursue any livelihood or any occupation
o To enter into all contracts which will be proper, necessary, and essential in carrying out his successful
completion of the above purposes mentioned.
 Something which is more than mere freedom from physical restraint or the bounds of a person, as long as you
are not stepping on to the rights of another.
 “Your right ends when the right of another begins.”

PROPERTY
 Things which are susceptible of appropriation in which are already found and possessed by a person
o EXAMPLE: In acquiring driver’s license or franchise, do you have property rights over it?
o ANSWER: NO, because it is not regarded as a property. These are mere conveniences/privileges given by
the State. Once a violation is made against the law, then such privileges will be taken by the State.

SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS VS PROCEDURAL DUE PROCES (Memorize since it will come out in the Midterm Exam)
SUBSTANTIVE PROCEDURAL
It is a guaranty that life, liberty, and property shall not be Referring to the regular methods of procedure to be
taken away by anyone without due process of law. observed before one’s life, liberty, and property can be
taken away from him.
 You have to follow the method/procedure laid
down before you deprive the life, liberty and
property of one person.
The law is invoked to take away one’s life, liberty, and It means that the procedure to be observed must be fair.
property. This is a guaranty to obtain a fair trial in court of justice
according to the mode of proceeding applicable in each
case.
REQUIREMENTS: 2 ASPECTS:
1. Referring to valid law – needs or requires a valid 1. Procedural due process in a criminal/judicial
law to which it is based. proceeding (Banco Filipino vs Palanca)
2. The law must have been passed, approved, and REQUIREMENTS (4):
has accomplished a valid government objective.  There must be an impartial court/tribunal
3. The objective must be pursued in a lawful clothed with their judicial power to hear and
manner. determine the matter before it.
4. The law as well as the means to accomplish the  The said impartial court/tribunal has the
objective must be valid and not oppressive. jurisdiction or the judicial power to hear and
determine the case before it. Jurisdiction
must be acquired lawfully over the person of
the defendant and over the property which is
the subject matter of the proceeding.
  The defendant must be given the opportunity
to be heard.
i. Right to confront witnesses
ii. Right to submit counter-affidavit
iii. Right to present your own evidence
 Judgment can only be rendered upon lawful
hearing.
2. Procedural due process in an administrative
proceeding (Ang Tibay vs CIR, 69 Phil 635)
REQUIREMENTS (7):
 Right to a hearing which includes the right to
present one’s case and evidence to support
his case.
 The tribunal must consider the evidence
presented.
 Decision must have something to support it.
 The evidence must be substantial.
 The decision must be rendered on the
evidence presented at the hearing or at least
contained in the records disclosed by the
parties.
 The tribunal, body or judges must act on its
own independent consideration of the law
and facts of the controversy, and not simply
on the views of the subordinate in arriving at
the conclusion – independent decision of the
judge or tribunal.
 The body should, in all controversial
questions, render its decision in such a
manner that the purpose of the proceeding
can know the various issues involved.
 It is on the part of the appellate court to
understand the issues involved so that they
would be able to arrive also at an intelligent
resolution/decision.
EXAMPLE: Seeks to avoid the situation wherein after the rendition
 Law requiring the members of the PNP to of the judgment, the other party or the defaulted party
undergo different trainings, examinations, and complains that he was denied of due process.
medical tests wherein the objective of which is to
ensure an effective PNP.
o There is due process here because there
is a valid governmental objective.

JURISDICTION – the power or authority to hear a matter before it.

VENUE – the place where the offense or crime is committed.

NOTE: There is a hierarchy or degree of proof required in every proceeding.

 Quantum of proof in criminal proceedings – proof beyond reasonable doubt.
o A single cloud of doubt in a criminal case would lead to acquittal of the same.
 Quantum of proof in civil cases – preponderance of evidence is the only proof.
o The evidence is much greater than the other one proposing it.
 Quantum of proof in administrative proceedings – substantial evidence is enough to make a decision
o Substantial evidence – it has a degree of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind would believe or
accept that it is adequate to support a conclusion.

RELATIVE CASES:
1. Ruby vs Provincial Government of Mindoro (case about the Mangyan Tribes)
2. Villavicencio vs Lukban (39 Phil 778)
 In their desire to clean the city of Manila of prostitution, the Mayor and the Chief of Police of Manila
gathered 170 prostitutes. Afterwards, they transported these women to Davao.
 This case was assailed to be illegal and considered as a violation of due process.
 When the SC sustained the petition for the issuance of habeas corpus, it ordered the return of the
prostitutes in Manila.
 You cannot be compelled to change your abode. As part of your liberty, you have the right to choose where
your abode will be.
3. Webb vs People of the Philippines (GR No. 127262)
 Issue: Whether or not a judge should be inhibited in hearing the case because she is allegedly a biased and
prejudiced judge.
 Filed by the petitioner because according to them, they have the right to a fair trial by an impartial judge.
 As a general rule, repeated rulings against a litigant no matter how erroneous, cannot be presumed by the
petitioner in order to disqualify the seating judge on grounds of bias. There must be extrinsic evidence to
establish bad faith and malice on the part of the judge because if you cannot prove that, then the judge is
not bound to inhibit himself from seating in your case.
 Exception: When there is gross and patent error to produce bad faith or malice on the part of the judge.

DUE PROCESS STANDARDS IN ALL TERMINATION OF EMPLOYENT:

 Twin Notice Rule/Requirement – discussed in Labor Law
a. Written Notice served on the employee for him to explain if there be any certain violation.
b. Notice of Termination after a conference is met.
 EXAMPLE: Constructive dismissal – If an employee commits a mistake, the employer immediately fires him/her.
It is a violation against the rights of the person (employee).
a. The employer must send a notice to the employee to explain the issue so as to observe due process in
termination of employment. After notice, the employer can terminate the employee through a written
Notice of Termination.

EQUAL PROTECTION (Section 1, Article 3, 1987 Constitution)

 It is a constitutional guaranty that all persons are equal before the law.
 It simply guarantees equality of opportunities among individuals.
 Also, it guarantees equality of protection given by law to persons or classes of person who are similarly situated
or belonging to the same classification.

REQUIREMENTS FOR VALID CLASSIFICATION (People vs Cayat, 68 Phil 12 and Ichong vs Fernandez):
1. It must rest on substantial distinction.
 Not on distinctions which are merely drawn out of convenience or caprice of a person or a group of
persons.
 A law or statute may prescribe a classification for as long as there is reasonable and legal ground upon
which it is based and provide the proportioned requirements to sustain its validity.
 If the classification is based on mere convenience or caprice to favor a person or group of persons, more
than the others who are similarly situated, then it is not a justifiable classification. It is considered as
arbitrary and unreasonable. These group of persons differ in liabilities and responsibilities imposed and the
benefits given when there is an invalid classification.
2. Classification must be germane to the purpose of the law.
3. It must be limited to existing conditions only.
4. It must apply equally to all members of the same class.

EXAMPLE: A law was passed prohibiting members of non-Christian tribes from drinking liquor because they are more
susceptible to its effect on account of their unfamiliarity with said wine as compared to their more civilized countrymen.
QUESTION: Is the law based on valid classification?
ANSWER: YES, according to People vs Cayat, the law is based on valid classification which is not arbitrary and
unreasonable. It only pertains to members of non-Christian tribes in the area who are not familiar with the wine as
compared to those more civilized countrymen. It was held therefore that all members of the same class should be
treated alike.

EXAMPLE: A law provides that a 65-year-old election local official was retired from a provincial/city/municipal office and
as received retirement benefits, who shall have reached that age in the commencement of the term of office, is
disqualified to run for the elected local office to which he retired. (Dumlao vs COMELEC)
QUESTION: Is the disqualification valid?
ANSWER: The SC sustained the validity of the disqualification provided for by law and ruled that there is reason to
disqualify for running for the same office to which she has retired.
 SEARCH AND SEIZURE (Section 2, Article 3, 1987 Constitution)

“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.”

3 RIGHTS CONTAINED THEREIN:

1. Concept of Privacy
 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 – INVIOLABLE!
 Pertains to the sanctity and the privacy of the person himself and inviolability of a person’s home and
his possessions.
 Includes correspondence, privacy.
 If a person is invading your property or home, there are several laws protecting the same:
i. Trespassing
2. Concept of Search
 Particularity requirement – that the place to be searched must be particularly described in the warrant
itself. Mere sketch of the place is not enough.
 BAR QUESTION: Supposing the peace officer has personal knowledge that the subject of the search
warrant, Mr. A, actually owned that particular space marked as “x” in the sketch. Will the personal
knowledge of the peace officer justify the service of the warrant to complete the constitutional
requirement of particularity?
 ANSWER: You cannot substitute the particularity requirement by mere personal knowledge on the part
of the peace officer. It must be included in the warrant itself, otherwise, it becomes a scattershot
warrant. Along with the sketch, there must be a description of the place to where the officer will search.
 Types of warrants:
i. Search warrant
ii. Warrant of arrest
3. Requisites of a valid warrant
 1. Existence of Probable Cause
 2. Probable cause must be personally determined by the Judge
 3. After personal examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce
 4. On the basis of their personal knowledge of the facts they are testifying to
 5. There must be particularity in the description of the places searched and the persons or things to be
seized
 6. The warrant must refer to one specific offense (requisite added by jurisprudence)

TYPES OF WARRANTS:
SEARCH WARRANT WARRANT OF ARREST
A writ in writing issued by a judge directing a peace A writ in writing issued by a judge directing a peace
officer to search a particular place. officer to arrest a person and bring him to court and to
answer for the crime/offense for which is being charged
in court.
Subject: a person (body) or place to be searched Subject: Person
Purpose: To gain evidence to convict Purpose: To acquire jurisdiction over the person of the
accused

JUDGE – only person authorized to issue a warrant.

Zulueta vs CA (GR No. 107383)

 The wife ransacks the cabinet owned by her husband in his office. The wife has doubts that her husband has a
paramour or lover. Upon searching, she discovered evidences against his infidelity. Are the evidences admissible
against the husband?
 No, they are not. Although settled is the rule that when the search is illegal, all evidences obtained herein
regardless of the nature of the evidence, cannot and will never be used against the offender in any proceeding,
what was violated here is not illegal search but privacy of a person. Hence, marriage does not mean total
surrender of one’s privacy.

NOTE: Unreasonable search and seizure is only applicable if the violator is an estate agent.
RULE: Before the peace officers can search your place, they must be armed with search warrant, otherwise, there is
unreasonable search and seizure.
EXCEPTIONS (People vs Aruta) – WARRANTLESS SEARCH:
1. Warrantless search incidental to lawful arrest
 A person has been lawfully arrested by the peace officer.
 EXAMPLE: A person was lawfully arrested because he was caught in flagrante delictu. Upon arrest, the
peace officer did a bodily search upon your person. Can you invoke a violation?
 ANSWER: No, because there was a lawful arrest.
 PURPOSE: To protect the person of the arresting officer because the person being arrested might be
armed with dangerous weapons.
 NOTE: The peace officer cannot reverse the process. There must be a lawful arrest before an incidental
warrantless search is done.
2. Invocation of the Plain View Doctrine or Seizure of evidence in plain view – it justifies mere seizure of evidence
without further search
 ELEMENTS OF PLAIN VIEW DOCTRINE:
i. There must be a prior valid intrusion on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally
present in that pursuit of official arrest.
ii. The evidence was inadvertently discovered.
iii. The evidence must be immediately apparent.
3. Search of a moving vehicle
 Highly regulated by the government because of the inherent mobility of motor vehicles.
 Checkpoints – the officers are only limited to visual search; There are certain requirements for this:
i. A checkpoint must be always stationery.
ii. It must only be established in a well-lighted place.
iii. It must always be pre-announced.
iv. Always conducted with a police car within the area.
v. The police officers conducting the same must be in complete uniform.
4. Consented warrantless search / consented search
 In a checkpoint, when you open the compartment and you have a firearm with you, you will be charged.
5. Customs search
 The police are allowed to conduct warrantless searches on behalf of the Department of Customs.
 Sec. 219 of the Customs Modernization and Tariff Act – no warrant is required for police or authorized
persons to pass, enter, search any land, enclosure, building, warehouse, vessels, aircrafts, vehicles but not
dwelling.
 PURPOSE: To verify whether or not custom duties and taxes were paid for their importation.
6. “Stop and Frisk Rule” or “Terry Search” – taken from Terry vs Ohio
 Police officers are very careful in invoking this.
 This can only be done if the suspect is acting suspiciously and it will depend on the circumstances of the
case.
 It is upon the discretion of the arresting officer.
7. Exigent and emergency circumstances – you don’t need a search warrant because of the nature of the
circumstances.

ARREST WITHOUT A WARRANT (EXCEPTIONS) - Sec. 5, Rule 113 of the New Rules of Criminal Procedure
 Arrest without warrant, when lawful. — A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a
person:
a. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting
to commit an offense – to be delivered immediately for inquest proceeding.
b. When an offense has just been committed, and he has probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it – to be delivered
immediately for inquest proceeding.
c. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place
where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped
while being transferred from one confinement to another.
 In cases falling under paragraph (a) and (b) above, the person arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith
delivered to the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against in accordance with section 7 of Rule
112. (5a)

NOTE: If the officer fails to deliver the person in 12/18/36 hours (reglementary period), they must be released and you
must file the case on regular investigation. The officer would then be charged with illegal detention if the accused
spends a period longer than the prescribed period.
PROBABLE CAUSE
 Such reasons supported by facts and circumstances as will warrant the cautious man in the belief that his actions
and the means presenting it are legally just and proper (Corro vs Lising, 137 SCRA 541).
 QUESTION: If there is a finding of probable cause, does this mean that the person being charged can already be
convicted of the crime?
 ANSWER: No, finding of probable cause is not an assurance for conviction. The accused is yet to present his
evidence also to rebut the accusation against him so he can prove his innocence.
 It is the court, during the trial and after presentation of evidences, who can decide whether or not indeed the
accused should be convicted or acquitted for the charges against him.
 The allegations indicated by the prosecution would be put to test during a full-blown trial (Drilon vs Court of
Appeals).
 Once the information is filed in court, it is left to the discretion of the court handling the case.
 Basis of probable cause: Personal knowledge of the complainant or his witnesses of the facts upon which the
issuance of the search warrant will be justified.
 Probable to cause to render a person for trial refers to the finding of the investigation of the prosecutor after
conducting the preliminary investigation.

REQUIREMENTS IN THE EXISTENCE OF PROBABLE CAUSE (As per Judge Saril, no need to memorize):
1. The judge must, before issuing the warrant personally examined, the complainant and witnesses, in the form of
searching questions and answers.
2. Examination must be under oath, must be in writing, and the complainant and witnesses must be examined
upon facts personally known to them.
3. The judge must attach the record stated by the complainants and witnesses together with any affidavit
submitted.

SUMMARY HEARING – in the said application of warrant, this is the method used. Doesn’t need the presence of both
parties.

PEOPLE VS SALAZAR (sample of Buy-Bust Operation)

 A Police officer posed as a buyer of marijuana from the accused’s store. Thereafter, he arrested the accused
without the warrant. The other police officer sees a plastic container in the store from which the accused took
the marijuana. These marijuana sticks were found in plastic containers. The accused was charged for selling
marijuana. The accused argued though that the warrantless seizure of marijuana was illegal. The search being
an incident to a lawful arrest needed no warrant for its validity. The accused having been caught in flagrante
delictu, wherein the police officers were duty-bound to apprehend her immediately. The warrantless search
and seizures incident to a lawful arrest may extend to include the promises under the immediate control of the
accused. The accused may not successfully invoke the right against a warrantless search even as regards to the
plastic containers found with ripe marijuana leaves found in the store.
 Related law: Sec. 5, RA No. 9165

BELMONTE VS DE GUIA (GR NO. 83988)

 The SC said, not all searches and seizure are prohibited. Those which are reasonable are not forbidden. A
reasonable search is not to be determined by a fixed formula but it is to be resolved according to the facts of
each case.

2 TYPES OF PROBABLE CAUSE (Question #5 in Midterms):

1. Probable cause as determined by the public prosecutor
 To determine whether or not a case shall be filed in court and person should be held to answer for a
crime.
 Executive in nature because the public prosecutor is under the executive department.
2. Probable cause as determined by the judge
 To determine whether or not a warrant shall issue.
 Judicial in nature because the judge is under the judiciary or SC.
ROBIN PADILLA VS COURT OF APPEALS
 Padilla hit a person while his car was running past along the highway of Angeles City. Two persons witnessed the
incident. The vehicle left the victim and fled. One of the witnesses chased the vehicle and called the attention of
the PNP and told them the plate number of the fleeing vehicle. Police caught upon the fleeing vehicle and Padilla
was asked to alight from the vehicle to he complied with. Upon alighting from the vehicle, a gun tucked on his
waist was revealed. Another was tucked in Padilla’s back and another gun was seen lying horizontally on the
front of the driver’s seat. The police officer moved to confiscate the gun but Padilla claimed that the gun was
covered by legal papers. He was subsequently arrested. Padilla claimed that his arrest was illegal and the
firearms therefore were not taken in force thereof. They are still admissible in evidence under the exclusionary
law/rule.
 QUESTION: Is the warrantless arrest legal and proper?
 ANSWER: YES, it is legal and proper because he already committed the crime of over speeding. The confiscation
of firearms was justified using plain view doctrine.

SEARCH OF A HOUSE
Q: Who shall be present during the search of a house?
A: it must be done in the presence of the lawful occupants. If they are not allowed, search is still allowed on the
condition that the two-witness rule must be applied.
 2 witnesses (usually barangay officials) of sufficient age and discretion, residing in the same locality, are present
during the search.