BILL OF RIGHTS: SECTION 3

2) RAMIREZ VS CA (GR #93833) FACTS:

1) IN RE: LAURETA (148 SCRA 382) FACTS: Eva Maravilla Illustre, the petitioner, lost a civil case against the Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) involving a vast estate, decided by the First Division of the Supreme Court. On October 20, 1986, the petitioner through her counsel wrote a letter to the members of the First Division of the Supreme Court in a stance of dangling threats to the effect of changing the courts adverse resolutions. The petitioner through her counsel Atty. Wenceslao Laureta wrote in part, we are pursuing further remedies in our quest for justice under the law. We intend to hold responsible members of the First Division who participated in the promulgation of these three minute-resolution in question. For the members thereof cannot claim immunity when their actions runs afoul with penal sanctions, even in the performance of official functions like others, none of the division members are above the law. On December16, 1986, the petitioner an AffidavitComplaint before the Tanodbayad, charging some members of the Supreme Court with having knowingly and deliberately rendered, with bad faith, an unjust, extended, minute-resolution, making her opponents the illegal owners of vast estates; charging some justices of the Court of Appeals with knowingly rendering their unjust resolution of January 20, 1984 through manifest and evident bad faith; and charging Solicitor General Sedfrey A. Ordoez and Justice Yap of the Supreme Court with having use their power and influence in persuading and inducing the members of the First Division of the Supreme Court into promulgating the aforementioned unjust extended minute-resolution. Atty. Laureta reportedly circulated copies of the complaint to the press, which was widely publicized into all dailies on December 23, 1986, without any copy furnished to the Supreme Court nor the members who were charged. ISSUE: Whether or not the privacy of communication was violated. HELD: The letters formed part of the judicial record and are a matter of concern for the entire court. There is no vindictive reprisal involved here. The courts authority and duty under the premises is unmistakable. It must act to preserve its honor and dignity from the scurrilous attack, and to safeguard lawyers, mouth by his client or safeguard the morals and ethics of the legal profession.

Soccoro Ramirez was scolded by Ester Garcia inside Garcias office. Ramirez taped the conversation and later file charges against Garcia for insulting and humiliating her, using as evidence the transcript of the conversation, based on the tape recording. Garcia filed criminal charges against Ramirez for violating the Antiwiretapping act, because it was done without her knowledge and consent. Ramirez claimed that what the law forbid is for other parties, who are not part of the conversation, to record it using instruments enumerated in the law (there was an earlier case that was dismissed because the instrument used was not mentioned in the law.) The trial court ruled in favor of Ramirez, granting a motion to quash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense. But the Court of Appeals reversed it. ISSUE: Whether or not RA 4200 on the Anti-wiretapping law allow parties to a conversation to tape it without the consent of all those involved. HELD: The Court noted that the provision makes it clear that it is illegal for any person to secretly record a conversation, unless authorized by all parties involved. The law makes no distinction as to whether the party sought to be penalized by the statute ought to be a party other than or different from those involved in the private communication. The Congressional records also showed that the intent was that permission must be sought from all the parties in the conversation. This is a complete ban on tape recorded conversations taken without the authorization of all the parties. The provision seeks to penalize even those privy to the private communications. Where the law makes no distinction, one does not distinguish.

3) ZULUETA VS CA (GR #107383) FACTS: Petitioner Cecilia Zulueta is the wife of the private respondent Alfredo Martin. On March 26, 1962, petitioner entered the clinic of her husband, a doctor of medicine, and in the presence of her mother, a driver and private respondents secretary forcibly opened the drawers and cabinet of her husbands clinic and took 157 documents consisting of private respondents between Dr. Martin and his alleged paramours, greeting cards, cancelled checks, diaries, Dr. Martins passport and photographs. The documents and papers was seized for use in evidence in a case for legal separation

and for disqualification from practice of medicine which petitioner had filed against her husband. ISSUE: Whether or not the papers and other materials obtained from forcible intrusion and from unlawful means are admissible as evidence in court regarding marital separation and disqualification from medical practice. HELD: Indeed the documents and papers in question are inadmissible in evidence. The constitutional implication declaring the privacy of communication and correspondence to be inviolable is no less applicable simply because it is the wife (who thinks herself aggrieved by her husbands infidelity) who is party against whom the constitutional provision is to be enforced, The only exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is if there is a lawful order from the court or which public safety or order require otherwise, as prescribed by law, Any violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify anyone of them in breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransacking them for any telltale evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed her/his integrity or her/his right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional protection is ever available to him or to her. The law insures absolute freedom of communication between the spouses by making it privileged. Neither husband nor wife may testify for or against the other without the consent of the affected spouse while the marriage subsists. Neither may be examined without the consent of the other as to any communication received in confidence by one from the other during the marriage, save for specified exceptions. But one thing is freedom of communication, guide another is a compulsion for each one to share what one knows with the other. And this has nothing to do with the duty of fidelity that each owes to the other.

inside. Opening one of the bundles, he pulled out a cellophane wrapper protruding from the opening of one of the gloves. He made an opening on one of the cellophane wrappers and took several grams of the content thereof. Mr. Job Reyes reported the incident to the NBI and requested a laboratory inspections of the samples extracted from the cellophane wrapper. It turned out that the dried leaves were marijuana flowering tops as certified by the forensic chemist of the Narcotic Section of the NBI. Thereafter, an information was filed against appellant for violation of RA 6425. The appellant contends that the evidence subject of the imputed offense has been obtained in violation of his constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures and privacy of communication and therefore argues that the same should be held inadmissible in evidence. The case at bar assumes a peculiar character since the evidence sought to be excluded was primarily discovered and obtained by a private person, acting in private capacity and without the intervention and participation of state authorities. ISSUE: Whether or not an act of a private individual, allegedly in violation of appellants constitutional rights, can be invoked against the state. HELD: We hold in the negative. In the absence of governmental interference, the liberties guaranteed by the constitution cannot be invoked against the state. This constitutional right refers to the immunity of ones person, whether citizen or alien, from interference by government. The contraband in the case at bar having come into possession of the government without the latter transgressing appellants rights against unreasonable searches and seizure, the Court sees no cogent reason why the same should not be admitted against him. The appellant, however, would like this court to believe that NBI agents made an illegal search and seizure of the evidence later on used in prosecuting the case. The arguments of appellant stands to fall on its on weight, or the lack of it. First, the factual considerations of the case at bar readily foreclose the proposition that NBI agents conducted an illegal search and seizures of the prohibited merchandise. Records of the case indicates that it was Mr. Job Reyes who made the search or inspection. Such inspection was reasonable and a standard operating procedure on the part of Mr. Reyes as a precautionary measure before delivery of packages to the Bureau of Customs or Bureau of Posts. Second, the mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert the reasonable search affected by Mr. Reyes into warrantless search and seizure prescribed by the constitution.

4) PEOPLE VS MARTI (193 SCRA 57) FACTS: Before the delivery of appellants tax to the Bureau of Customs and / Bureau of Posts, Mr. Job Reyes, the proprietor of the forwarding company, together with his wife Anita Reyes, following standard operating procedures, opened the boxes for final inspection. When he opened appellants box, a peculiar order emitted therefrom. His curiosity aroused, he squeezed one of the bundles allegedly containing gloves and felt dried leaves

5) ALIH VS CASTRO (151 SCRA 279) FACTS: Respondents who were members of the Philippine Marines and Defense Forces raided the compound occupied by petitioner in search of loose firearms, ammunitions and explosives. A shootout ensued after petitioner resisted the intrusion by the respondents, killing a number of men. The following morning, the petitioners were arrested and subjected to fingerprinting, paraffin testing and photographing despite their objections. Several kinds of rifles, grenades and ammunitions were also confiscated. The petitioners filed an injunction suit with a prayer to have the items illegally seized returned to them and invoked the provisions on the Bill of Rights. The respondents admitted that the operation was done without a warrant but reasoned that they were acting under superior orders and that operation was necessary because of the aggravation of the peace and order problem due to the assassination of the city mayor. ISSUE: Whether or not the seizing of the items and the taking of the fingerprint and photographs of the petitioners and subjecting them to paraffin testing are violation of the Bill of Rights and inadmissible as evidence against them. HELD: The Court held that superior orders nor the suspicion that the respondents had against the petitioners did not excuse the former from observing the guarantee provided for by the Constitution against unreasonable searches and seizures. The petitioners were entitled to due process and should be protected from the arbitrary actions of those tasked to execute the law. Furthermore, there was no showing that the operation was urgent nor was there any showing of the petitioners as criminals or fugitives of justice to merit approval by virtue of Rule 113, Section 5 of the Rules of Court. The items seized having been the fruits of the poisonous tree were held inadmissible as evidence in any proceedings against the petitioners. The operation by the respondents was done without a warrant and so the items seized during said operation should not be acknowledged in court as evidence. But said evidence should remain in the custody of the law. However, as to the issue of finger-printing, photographing, and paraffin testing as violative of the provision against self-incrimination, the court held that the prohibition against self-incrimination applies to testimonial only.