CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II Midterm Reviewer | Atty.

Glenn Carampatana | by KRB EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS (midterms)

the question of whether or not there was probable cause during preliminary investigation was held to be not cognizable by the trial courts since such would be an encroachment of an executive function. It was held that the Secretary of Labor may not validly issue warrants of arrest. (Salazar vs. Achacoso)

Requirements of Equal Protection Clause (Reasonable Classification): 1. Must rest on real or substantial distinctions; 2. Must be germane to the purposes of the law; 3. Must not be limited to existing conditions only; 4. Must apply equally to all members of the same class. (People vs. Cayat, 68 Phil 12) Thus, a statute penalizing a Philippine citizen that is a member of a non-Christian trible to buy, receive, possess or drink any intoxicating liquid of any kind other than the so-called native wines and liquors which members of the tribe have accustomed themselves was held constitutional in the sense that there may be valid classifications that comply with the requirements of reasonable classification. (People vs. Cayat, supra) An AO limiting the access of motorcycles was not violative of the equal protection clause since the classification of a motorcycle from other vehicles was substantial since a two-wheeled vehicle is less stable and more easily overturned than a 4-wheeled vehicle. It was also germane to the purpose of the law, to ensure public safety and to regulate traffic. (Mirasol vs. DPWH, GR. No. 158793, June 8, 2006) ARREST, SEARCHES AND SEIZURES Section 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. An unreasonable search made by a private individual would not violate A2Consti and may be admitted as evidence but without prejudice to a complaint for damages under A32CC. Elements for the Issuance of a valid Search Warrant: 1. Probable Cause 2. Determination by a judge 3. Personal examination 4. Particularity of description Probable Cause The facts and circumstances that would warrant a prudent man to believe that a crime has been committed or that the object sought in connection with the offense is in the place specified. Probable cause does not require a standard quantum of evidence; it merely talks about the probability that an offense has been committed. Thus, where a search warrant with an affidavit stating that newspapers were used for subversive measures was declared violative of the bill of rights by the SC ruling that the affidavit did not state how subversion was committed using the newspapers. Probable cause was not present. (Burgos vs. Chief of Staff) Q: Who determines probable cause? A: It depends. Probable cause to hold an accused for trial is an executive function and is determined by the Public Prosecutor. Probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest is a judicial function and is determined solely and personally by the judge. Probable cause during preliminary investigation is not a final statement averring the guilt or innocence of an accused. It is merely a determination on whether trial should be had. Thus, in People vs. Court of Appeals, where a motion to quash the information based on

The Commissioner of Deportation may issue a warrant if there is a final order of deportation. (Morano vs. Vivo; Qua Chee Gan vs. Deportation Board) Personal Examination by the Judge The Judge shall: 1. Personally evaluate the report and supporting documents submitted by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and, on the basis thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or 2. If he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscals report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at the conclusion of whether or not there is probable cause to issue a warrant. Thus, where a Judge, pursuant to a change of venue, merely relied on the prosecutors certification whose records were still in the previous venue, issued a warrant of arrest, such warrant did not comply with the requirement of PERSONAL DETERMINATION. (Lim vs. Felix) In determining the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the arrest of the accused, the RTC judge may rely on the findings and conclusions in the resolution of the investigating prosecutor finding probable cause for the filing of the Information. After all, as the Court held in Webb v. De Leon, the judge just personally reviews the initial determination of the investigating prosecutor finding a probable cause to see if it is supported by substantial evidence. However, in determining the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the arrest of the accused, the judge should not rely solely on the said report. The judge should consider not only the report of the investigating prosecutor but also the affidavit/affidavits and the documentary evidence of the parties, the counter-affidavit of the accused and his witnesses, as well as the transcript of stenographic notes taken during the preliminary investigation, if any, submitted to the court by the investigating prosecutor upon the filing of the Information. (Okabe vs. Gutierrez) Particularity of Description A search warrant issued for four distinct offenses is violative of the particularity requirement in the issuance of a valid search warrant. One warrant must only be for one offense. (Bache and Co. vs. Ruiz) A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized when: (1) the description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow; or (2) when the description expresses a conclusion of fact not of law by which the warrant officer may be guided in making the search and seizure; or (3) when the things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Thus, a warrant describing private books of accounts, receipts, business records, etc. which did not have any evidence that such have a direct relation to an offense committed was held as invalid. In such a case the description should have mentioned the dates, amounts, persons, and other pertinent data in relation to the offense. (Ibid.) However, a warrant for the search and seizure for an undetermined amount of marijuana was held to (1) readily identify the properties to be seized and prevent them from seizing the wrong items; and (2) leave said peace officers with no discretion regarding the articles to be seized and prevent unreasonable searches. Consequently, a warrant for an undetermined amount of drugs complies with the particularity requirement. (People vs. Tee) A warrant issued against John Does is considered to be invalid but only insofar as the John Does are concerned; hence, if a warrant is issued against 14 identified persons and 50 John Does, such warrant is

void only insofar as the John Does, but the warrant against the identified persons is still valid. (Pangandaman vs. Casar) Minor inconsistencies in the description of the place to be searched does not invalidate a warrant. It has been held that a caption in the warrant states the address as Hernan Cortes St., Cebu City while the body states Hernan Cortes St., Mandaue City was immaterial to the validity of the warrant. (Uy vs. BIR) The Constitution requires that there be a particular description of the place to be searched and the persons of things to be seized. The rule is that a description of a place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the community. Any designation of description known to the locality that points out the place to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry leads the officers unerringly to it, satisfies such requirement. It was held that a search warrant mistakenly identified the residence as Barrio Padasil instead of Barrio Maria Cristina, SC admitted that the deficiency in the writ is not enough to invalidate such. (Ibid.) Two issuances where one warrant was issued against one accused while the second warrant was directed against both the accused and his corporation was held to be irrelevant if a search warrant is issued for the search of specifically described premises only and not for the search of a person. Such defect is not considered fatal since there is still no discretion left to the officer in making the search as to the place to be searched. (Ibid.) Where a warrant whose things sought to be seized was described as follows:
1. Multiple sets of Books of Accounts; Ledgers, Journals, Columnar Books, Cash Register Books, Sales Books or Records; Provisional & Official Receipts; 2. Production Record Books/Inventory Lists [,] Stock Cards; 3. Unregistered Delivery Receipts; 4. Unregistered Purchase & Sales Invoices; 5. Sales Records, Job Order; 6. Corporate Financial Records; and 7. Bank Statements/Cancelled Checks

Thus, pursuant to a buy-bust operation, the police searched the accused and found more marijuana, it was ruled that such constituted a valid warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest. (People vs. Kalubiran) Pursuant to a tip by an informant, the police apprehended an accused after alighting from a bus and crossing the street. Such arrest was held invalid since there was no probable cause due to the fact that the police had no personal knowledge since they relied solely on the informant. Since the arrest was illegal, the search incidental to such was declared also illegal; hence, the evidence was ruled as inadmissible. However, where the police officers searched an accused on board a bus pursuant to intelligence reports and there was no time to procure a warrant, such was declared as a legal search incidental to a lawful arrest since the accused was the only foreigner in the bus and they had probable cause to believe he was committing a crime. (People vs. Malmstedt) Where an accused did not portray acts that might be constitutive of probable cause, a search incidental to such illegal arrest is also invalid. (People vs. Chua Ho San) A Search Incidental to a Lawful Arrest may extend beyond the person of the one arrested to include the premises or surroundings under his immediate control. Thus, where an additional search in the petitioners house after his arrest do not fall under the exceptions. (Espano vs. CA) Seizure of Evidence in Plain View Requisites: 1. There must be prior justification; 2. Inadvertent discovery of the evidence; 3. Immediate apparent illegality of the evidence. (People vs. Salanguit) Objects in the Plain View of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence. However, such doctrine may not be used to conduct unreasonable searches and seizures nor be used to obtain evidence against an accused. (People vs. Musa) Thus, where an accused was arrested pursuant to a buy-bust operation and upon searching for the marked money, the officers stumbled upon a white plastic bag which contained marijuana, such was declared as inadmissible since they had to open it to discover the contraband. (Ibid.) When a police officer, pursuant to a search incidental to a lawful arrest inadvertently finds contraband, such was held as admissible. (People vs. Figueroa) Where police officers frisked a vehicle covered in kakawati leaves and found stolen cable wires, such was declared as inadmissible on the ground that such was not in the plain view since they had remove the kakawati leaves. (Caballes vs. CA) Stop and Frisk Doctrine There must be a narrowly drawn authority to permit a reasonable search for weapons for the protection of the police officer, where he has reason to believe that he is dealing with an armed and dangerous individual, regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest the latter for a crime. The scope of the search must be justified by the circumstances that led the police to undertake it in the first place. Such was applicable in this case. The detective observed Terry and his cohorts acting in a manner he took to be a preface to a stickup. Any reasonable person in McFaddens position would have thought that Terry was armed and presented a threat to his safety while he was investigating the suspicious behavior he was observing. The events he had witnessed made it reasonable for him to believe that Terry et al. were armed. Moreover, the officer limited his search to the outer surfaces of the suspects clothing. Thus, the search was related in scope to the concern for his own safety.

SC ruled that while most of the items listed in the warrants fail to meet the test of particularity, as regards the terms unregistered delivery receipts and unregistered purchase & sales invoices, the serial markings of these documents need not be specified as it is not possible to do so precisely because they are unregistered. The general description of most of the documents listed in the warrants does not render the entire warrant void. Insofar as the warrants authorize the search and seizure of unregistered delivery receipts and purchase and sales invoices, the warrants remain valid. ALLOWABLE WARRANTLESS SEARCHES Search Incidental to a Lawful Arrest A person lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or anything which may have been sued or constitute proof in the commission of an offense without a search warrant. (S12R126RCP) The scope of such search should be limited to the area within which the person to be arrested can reach for a weapon or for evidence that he or she can destroy. The prevailing rule is that the arresting officer may take from the arrested individual any money or property found upon the latters person that which was used in the commission of the crime or was the fruit of the crime, or which may provide the prisoner with the means of committing violence or escaping, or which may be used in evidence in the trial of the case. (People vs. Estella) Where the police officers, after finding accused being in possession of drugs, searched the latters house allegedly incidental to a lawful arrest was held to be violative of the constitution; hence the contraband found pursuant to such search was ruled to be inadmissible as evidence. (Ibid.)

The sole justification of the search is the protection of the police officer and others nearby, and it must be therefore confined in scope to an intrusion reasonable designed to discover hidden weapons or instruments for the assault of the police officer. (Terry vs. Ohio) Where police officers spotted an accused carrying a buri bag and acted suspiciously and attempted to flee such was a valid ground for the former to stop and search the accused and although the contraband found was inadmissible by a search incidental to a lawful arrest, it is nevertheless admissible through a stop and frisk. (Posadas vs. CA) Where police officers were conducting an intelligence patrol to verify reports of armed persons roaming around, there was a valid stop and frisk when they saw the accused and his companions drunk and wearing camouflage uniform. The gist of the probable cause was when the accuseds companions ran away. There was a valid ground to stop and search them. (People vs. Solayao) Where the police officers apprehended an accused on the ground that his eyes were moving fast, the SC held that such did not constitute probable cause for a valid stop and frisk. (Malacat vs. CA) Where police officers conducting surveillance pursuant to reports spotted the accused having reddish eyes and was walking in a swaying manner, such was held as probable cause for the officers to stop and frisk the accused. (Manalili vs. CA) A stop and frisk was defined as the act of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him, and pat him for weapons or contraband. The police officer should properly introduce himself and make initial inquiries, approach and restrain a person who manifests unusual and suspicious conduct, in order to check the latters outer clothing for possible concealed illegal articles. The apprehending officer must have a genuine reason, in accordance with the police officers experience and the surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person to be held has weapons or contraband concealed with him. It should therefore be emphasized that a search and seizure should precede the arrest for this principle to apply. (People vs. Sy Chua) Exigent and Emergency Circumstances Where there are emergency situations in which it is impractical to procure a warrant first, the SC ruled that a search and seizure would be permitted sans a warrant in such a case. (People vs. De Gracia) Search of a Moving Vehicle A warrantless search of a moving vehicle is justified on the ground that it is not practicable to secure a warrant since the vehicle can transport contraband and quickly escape. (People vs. Caballes) Allowed instances: 1. Officer merely draws the curtain of a parked vehicle on public fair grounds; 2. Officer simply looks into a vehicle; 3. Flashes a light w/o opening the car doors; 4. Occupants are not subjected to a physical or body search; 5. Inspection is limited to a visual search; 6. Routine check conducted in a fixed area (checkpoint). However, where the passengers act in a manner suspicious enough to constitute probable cause, the officers may subject the former to an extensive search. (People vs. Vinecario) Waiver Requisites: 1. The right exists; 2. That a person had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the existence of such right; 3. That the person had intention to relinquish that right.

Where police asked the accused if they could open, it was ruled as a valid waiver, thus, even though the search was unreasonable, the contraband found was admissible in evidence. (People vs. Omaweng) Mere silence is not a valid waiver, but merely a regard for the supremacy of the law. (People vs. Barros) Where petitioner was forced at gunpoint to consent to a search, the SC ruled that it does not constitute a valid waiver if there are threatening circumstances present. (Lui vs. Matillano) The right can only be waived by the person who has the right or by another person authorized to do so. (People vs. Damaso) However, in the case of Lopez vs. Commissioner of Customs, it was held that another person though unauthorized, may waive the right depending on the facts and circumstances. Distinction between Lopez and Asis: In Asis, the person whose right was invaded was present at the time; hence, he should have been the one to waive such; In the case of Lopez, the accused was not present, therefore the consent given by the occupant of the hotel room was deemed the consent of the accused. For purposes of the exam, you apply Lopez when the facts are similar. Search of Passengers at Airports When you enter an airport and subject to their rules and regulations, you waive your right. ALLOWABLE WARRANTLESS ARRESTS Sec. 5. 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; (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; and (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 paragraphs (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. (S5R113ROC) Presence is not just physical presence, or that you saw that an offense has just been committed. It may also be that you heard such. Buy-bust operation valid warrantless arrest (in flagrante delicto) However, where in a buy-bust operation, the police did not apprehend immediately the accused and subsequently arrested him again; it was held that such did not constitute an arrest in flagrante delicto.(People vs. Rodrigueza)

Exclusionary Rule Where petitioner confessed without aid of counsel but there were other evidence against him apart from his alleged confession, the court ruled that even if they disregard the extrajudicial confession, they cannot reject the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses. Where the accused failed to object to the admissibility of the evidence during the formal offer, the court ruled that they waived their right against the admissibility; there being a waiver, such evidence was considered admissible. PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND CORRESPONDENCE Section 3. 1. The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, 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. While Section 2 of the BOR also pertains to privacy, such pertains only to the privacy of tangible property; while section 3 pertains to the intangible. Exception: Lawful order of the court, or when public safety requires, as prescribed by law. Lawful Order of the Court Before the court issues an order, there must be a lawful order pursuant to a determination of probable cause. Public Safety A government officials assessment that public safety requires, as prescribed by law; and any determination is subject to judicial review. This is covered by RA 4200, the Anti-Wiretapping Law. RA4200 does not cover public conversations but only private communications. The using of a telephone extension line is not covered under RA4200. The exclusionary rule does not apply to a letter which is judicially recorded.