Equal protection is not a magic wand that assures absolute equality;

it just assures legal equality

Take note of requisites for equal protection clause

Justifying classifications:
1. When the Constitution allows it; or
2. When it passes the four tests for a valid classification (requisites?)

Ex. of valid classification: RPC classifying criminals from other persons

The law must pass all tests for equal protection

H. Villarica Pawnshop v. SSC- discussed

Congress is given a wide leeway when determing valid classifications

in relation to math shit

Abubakar v. People- discussed

DPWH-ARMM fucked up

COA was sent to audit, they found violations against the anti-graft law

Cases were filed, lawyers were armed, legal swords were sharpened

"Selective prosecution!" cried petitioner

Prosecution of offenses is generally addressed to the sound discretion of

the fiscal

Extrinsic evidence of clear showing of intentional discrimination

Not automatic when you're the only one being prosecuted when there are a
bunch of people

Selective prosecution came from the U.S. of Motherfucking A.

Not formally adopted by the PH

People v. Dela Piedra- SC ruled regarding this

Presumption is that prosecuting officers regularly performed their duties

This case petitioners failed to adduce evidence to establish selective

prosecution

Pension and Gratuity v. AAA

VAWCI case, man complained that it is a violation of his equal protection

clause

There are substantial distinctions kasi between men and women, so it's
fine

Reyes v. HRET

Pet. alleges that Rule 6 of the 2015 HRET rules is unconstitutional as it

gives the Justices denial or veto powers over the proceedings by simply
absenting themselves

3 Justices + 6 members of Congress

Constitutional classification of people, so it's valid

Power of Justices is meant to tone down the political nature of the body

Rule states that at least 1 Justice and 4 members of the Tribunal to

constitute a quorum.

Racho v. Tanaka

Goddamn this is a persons case apparently

Divorce stuff, Pinoy woman Japanese man

Woman empowerment with regards to Filipina women and divorce

Letter of the law does not demand that the alien spouse should be the one
who initiated the proceeding wherein the divorce decree was granted. As
long as it was done, it is validly obtained. No need to determine who
got it

DPWH v. COA

Selective enforcement, same with selective prosecution

Sec. 2 and 3 of Bill of Rights (Requirements of Fair Procedure)

Sec. 2 Right against unreasonable searches and seizures

Needs a search warrant, this right is generally inviolable

Search warrant is only issued when there is probable cause to be deter-

mined 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

Sec. 3 is Right to Privacy

If right of Sec. 2 is violated, 2nd paragraph of Sec. 3 applies

"Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceeding section

shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding

These provisions guarantee against unreasonable seraches and seizures

and of privacy

Judge must have probable cause, otherwise the warrant becomes null and
void

Diffirent arrests, searches, seizures, and their warrants:

1. Search Warrant
2. Arrest Warrant
3. Warrantless Searches
4. Warrantless Arrests
Requisites for valid search warrant- Order in writing; issued in the
name of the People of the Ph Islands, signed by a judge or justice
of peace and directed to a peace officer commanding him to search for
personal property and bring it before court

Must specifically describe:

Place
Objects
One offense only

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 descirbe the place to be searched, the persons
and things to be seized

Probably cause- facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably

discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been
committed and that the objects sounght in connection with the offense
are in the place sought to be searched. Proof beyond reasonable doubt
is not required.

Probable cause is the lightest quantum of evidence

Procedure:
1. Petition for a search warrant before a judge and must be supported
by affidavit
2. Judge should issue warrant based on probable cause
3. Judge must examine the witnesses personally
4. The examination by means of searching

Questions of the judge must be probate and thorough, not just examining

When search warrant should be served:

General rule is that search warrants must be served during the daytime
to protect the public from the abrasiveness of official intrusions

Exception: When the application asserts that the property is on the

person or place ordered to be searched. Absence of abuse of discretion
a search conducted at night where so allowed is not improper.

General warrant- fucked up warrant

Types:
Fails to describe object, person, or offense

Landmark case: Stonehill vs. Diokno

Absolute unit of a warrant; offense stated includes offenses against

Central Bank laws, tarrifs and customs laws, and shit sa RPC

Objects need not be described in precise details

Minor discepancies does not nullify the warrant

Objects not specifically described in the warrant but are considered

contraband may be seized in plain view and are admissible in court

Worldwide Web v. People

Search warrants were issued without probable cause (?)

Presumed that a judicial function has been regularly performed, absent

a showing to the contrary

PLDT v. Alvarez

Laud v. People

Ogayon v. People

People v. Posada

Hearsay evidence: PDIC v. Casimiro

Citing Estrada v. Ombudsman

Probable cause is allowed to rest on evidence that is not normally

legally competent evidence