CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM MIDTERMS
it must be issued upon probable cause;
A. MIRANDA RIGHTS
art 3, sec 12
(1) any person under investigation for the
commission of an offense shall have the
right to be informed of his right to remain
silent and to have a competent counsel
preferably of his own choice. If the person
cannot afford the services of counsel, he
must be provided with one. These rights
cannot be waived except in writing and in
the presence of counsel.
(2) No torture, force, violence, threat,
intimidation or any other means which
vitiate the free will shall be used against
him. Secret detention places, solitarily,
incommunicado, or other similar forms of
detention are prohibited.
(3) Any confession or admission obtained in
violation of this or Sec 17 hereof shall be
inadmissible in evidence against him.
(4) The law shall provide for penal and civil
sanctions for violations of this section as
well as compensation to the rehabilitation
of victims of torture or similar practices,
and their families.
B. RIGHT TO PRIVACY
1. art 3, sec 2
The right of 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.
2. Right to privacy of communication and
correspondence (Disini vs DOJ)
C. REQUISITES OF A VALID WARRANT
1.
2. Probable cause must be determined
personally by the judge;
3. such judge must examine under oath or
affirmation the complaint and the
witnesses he may produce;
4. the warrant must particularly describe the
place to be searched and the persons or
things to be seized (sec.2, art III, 1987
Constitution, People vs. Tiu Won Chua)
D. WARRANT OF ARREST VS. SEARCH
WARRANT
A Search Warrant is an order in writing issued
in the name of the People of the Philippines,
signed by a judge and directed to a peace
officer, commanding him to search for personal
property described therein and bring it before
the court. (sec 1 Rule 126)
A Warrant of Arrest is an order in writing
issued by a competent authority directing a
peace officer to bring into custody the person
subject of the warrant upon the grounds stated
therein. (Rule 113)
E. PROBABLE CAUSE
For Search Warrant such facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably
discreet and prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed, and that objects
sought in connection with the offense are in
the place sought to be searched. (Laud vs
People)
For arrest
Probable cause in the issuance of warrant -
facts and circumstances that would engender
a well-grounded that a crime has been
committed and the person to be arrested has
committed it.
for Personal knowledge: Escordial case
Personal knowledge of facts in arrests without
a warrant under Section 5(b) of Rule 113 must
be based upon probable cause which means
an actual belief or reasonable grounds of
suspicion. The grounds of suspicion are
reasonable when, in the absence of actual
belief of the arresting officers, the suspicion
that the person to be arrested is probably
guilty of committing the offense is based on
actual facts, i.e., supported by circumstances
sufficiently strong in themselves to create the
probable cause of guilt of the person to be
arrested. A reasonable suspicion therefore
must be founded on probable cause, coupled
with good faith on the part of the peace officer
making the arrest.
F. GENERAL WARRANT VS. SCATTER
SHOT WARRANT
a Scattershot warrant refers to those
warrants issued for more than one specific
offense and is null and void as prohibited
under Sec. 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court
(Laud vs People)
a General Warrant refers to
(Worldwide Web vs PLDT) General warrant - a
search or arrest warrant that is not particular
as to the person to be arrested or the property
to be seized.
In People v. Rubio, 57 Phil. 384, 389 (1932), this
Court said, While it is true that the property to
be seized under a warrant must be particularly
described therein and no other property can be
taken thereunder, yet the description is
required to be specific only in so far as the
circumstances will ordinarily allow. Where by
the nature of the goods to be seized, their
description must be rather general, it is not
required that a technical description be given,
as this would mean that no warrant could
issue. As a corollary, however, we could not
logically conclude that where the description of
those goods to be seized have been
expressed technically, all others of a similar
nature but not bearing the exact technical
descriptions could not be lawfully subject to
seizure. Otherwise, the reasonable purpose of
the warrant issued would be defeated by mere
technicalities. (stated in the case of Al Ghoul)
G. HOW A SEARCH MAY BE CONDUCTED?
1. Sec 7, Rule 126, RRCP - The officer, wife
refused admittance to the place of directed
search after giving notice of his purpose
and authority, may break open any outer or
inner door or window of a house or any
part of a house or anything therein to
execute the warrant or liberate himself or
any person lawfully aiding him when
unlawfully detained therein.
2. Sec 8, ibid - No search of a house, room or
any other premises shall be made except
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.
3. sec 11, ibid. - the officer seizing property
under the warrant must give a detailed
receipt for the same to the lawful occupant
of the premises in whose presence the
search and seizure were made, or in the
absence of such occupant, must, in the
presence of at least two witnesses of
sufficient age and discretion residing in the
same locality, leave a receipt in the place
in which he found the seized property.
4. sec 12, ibid. (a) the office must forthwith
deliver the property sized to the judge who
issued the warrant, together with the true
inventory thereof full verified under oath.
(b) 10 days after the issuance of the search
warrant , the issuing judge shall ascertain if the
return has been made, and if none, shall
summon the person to whom the warrant was
issued and require him to explain why no
return was made. if the return has been made,
the judge shall ascertain whether sec 11 of this
rule has been complied with and shall require
the property seized to be delivered to him. the
judge shall see to it that subsection 9a hereof
has been complied with;
(c) the return of the search warrant shall be
filed and kept by the custodian of the log book
on search warrants who shall enter therein the
date of the return, the result, and other actions
of the judge.
G. INSTANCES OF WARRANTLESS
SEARCH (Caballes vs CA)
1. Search incident to lawful arrest
2. the plain view doctrine
3. search of moving vehicles
4. customs searches
5. Search with consent
6. stop and frisk (terry search)
7. exigent searches
H. INSTANCES OF WARRANTLESS ARREST
sec 5 rule 113 of RRCP
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 belive 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.
I. EXCLUSIONARY RULE
sec 12 (3) Any confession or admission
obtained in violation of this or Sec 17 hereof
shall be inadmissible in evidence against him.
- Nardone vs US once the primary source
(the tree) is shown to have been unlawfully
obtained, any secondary or derivative
evidence (the fruit) derived from it is also
inadmissible.
J. REQUISITES OF A VALID WAIVER (during
Custodial Investigation)
RA 7438 sec 2(e)
Any waiver by a person arrested or detained
under the provisions of article 125 of the RPC
or under custodial investigation, shall be in
writing and signed by such person person in
the presence of his counsel; otherwise the
waiver shall be null and void and of no effect.
*Who else can be present if the counsel is not
around? RA 7438 sec 2
Any extrajudicial confession made by a person
arrested, detained or under custodial
investigation shall be in writing and signed by
such person in the presence of his counsel or
in the latter's absence, upon a valid waiver,
and in the presence of any of the parents,
elder brothers and sisters, his spouse, the
municipal mayor, the municipal judge, district
school supervisor, or priest or minister of the
gospel as chosen by him; otherwise, such
extrajudicial confession shall be inadmissible
as evidence in any proceeding.
Caballes vs. ca - valid waiver of constitutional
right
(1) the right exists;
(2) that the person involved had knowledge,
either actual or constructive, of the
existence of such right; and
(3) the said person had an actual intention to
relinquish the right.[55]
K. POLICE LINE-UP VS. SHOW UP
(people vs amestuzo)
Show up is the presentation of a single
suspect to a witness for purposes of
identification and is seriously flawed as it
constitutes the most grossly suggestive
identification procedure now or ever used by
the police.
police line-up is a part of the investigation
process by which police officers to ascertain
the identity of offenders or confirm their
identification by a witness to the crime.
(people vs. escordial)
In a show-up, the accused alone is brought
face to face with the witness for identification,
while in a police line-up, the suspect is
identified by a witness from a group of persons
gathered for that purpose.[43]
L. INDEPENDENT AND COMPETENT
COUNSEL (People vs Bagnate)
willing to fully safeguard the constitutional
rights of the accused, as distinguished from
one who would merely be giving a routine,
peremptory and meaningless recital of the
individuals constitutional rights.
M. GUIDELINES OF ARREST and CI
People v. Mahinay (122485, Feb 1, 1999)
1. The person arrested, detained, invited or
under custodial investigation must be informed
in a language known to and understood by him
of the reason for the arrest and he must be
shown the warrant of arrest, if any; Every other
warnings, information or communication must
be in a language known to and understood by
said person; (language)
2. He must be warned that he has a right to
remain silent and that any statement he makes
may be used as evidence against him;
(silence)
3. He must be informed that he has the right to
be assisted at all times and have the presence
of an independent and competent lawyer,
preferably of his own choice; (assistance of
counsel)
4. He must be informed that if he has no
lawyer or cannot afford the services of a
lawyer, one will be provided for him; and that a
lawyer may also be engaged by any person in
his behalf, or may be appointed by the court
upon petition of the person arrested or one
acting in his behalf; (provision of a lawyer)
5. That whether or not the person arrested has
a lawyer, he must be informed that no
custodial investigation in any form shall be
conducted except in the presence of his
counsel or after a valid waiver has been made;
(counsel - a must in CI, unless waived)
6. The person arrested must be informed that,
at any time, he has the right to communicate
or confer by the most expedient means
telephone, radio, letter or messenger with his
lawyer (either retained or appointed), any
member of his immediate family, or any
medical doctor, priest or minister chosen by
him or by any one from his immediate family or
by his counsel, or be visited by/confer with
duly accredited national or international non-
government organization. It shall be the
responsibility of the officer to ensure that this is
accomplished; (communication and visitation)
7. He must be informed that he has the right to
waive any of said rights provided it is made
voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently and
ensure that he understood the same; (waiver)
8. In addition, if the person arrested waives his
right to a lawyer, he must be informed that it
must be done in writing AND in the presence
of counsel, otherwise, he must be warned that
the waiver is void even if he insist on his
waiver and chooses to speak; (invalid waiver)
9. That the person arrested must be informed
that he may indicate in any manner at any time
or stage of the process that he does not wish
to be questioned with warning that once he
makes such indication, the police may not
interrogate him if the same had not yet
commenced, or the interrogation must ceased
if it has already begun; (indication for refusal to
answer questions)
10. The person arrested must be informed that
his initial waiver of his right to remain silent,
the right to counsel or any of his rights does
not bar him from
invoking it at any time during the process,
regardless of whether he may have answered
some questions or volunteered some
statements; (rights can be invoked anytime)
11. He must also be informed that any
statement or evidence, as the case may be,
obtained in violation of any of the foregoing,
whether inculpatory or exculpatory, in whole or
in part, shall be inadmissible in evidence.
(inadmissibility of evidences)
There are two kinds of determination of
probable cause: executive and judicial. The
executive determination of probable cause is
one made during preliminary investigation. It is
a function that properly pertains to the public
prosecutor who is given a broad discretion to
determine whether probable cause exists and
to charge those whom he believes to have
committed the crime as defined by law and
thus should be held for trial. Otherwise stated,
such official has the quasi-judicial authority to
determine whether or not a criminal case must
be filed in court. Whether or not that function
has been correctly discharged by the public
prosecutor, i.e., whether or not he has made a
correct ascertainment of the existence of
probable cause in a case, is a matter that the
trial court itself does not and may not be
compelled to pass upon.
The judicial determination of probable cause,
on the other hand, is one made by the judge to
ascertain whether a warrant of arrest should
be issued against the accused. The judge
must satisfy himself that based on the
evidence submitted, there is necessity for
placing the accused under custody in order not
to frustrate the ends of justice. If the judge
finds no probable cause, the judge cannot be
forced to issue the arrest warrant.32
The difference is clear: The executive
determination of probable cause concerns
itself with whether there is enough evidence to
support an Information being filed. The judicial
determination of probable cause, on the other
hand, determines whether a warrant of arrest
should be issued.