Search and Seizure

Thursday, 15 February 2018

6:42 PM
On arrest, search, and seizure, Art III provides that the right for people to be secure against
unreasonable searches and seizures, etc. naa sa Consti.

It is sacred that in the 2nd paragraph of Sec 2 Art 3, it is provided that any evidence obtained in
violation of this shall be inadmissible for any purpose and any proceedings.

Caballes case - Police officers suspected that Caballes was transporting illegal commodity
because of it being covered by leaves. It is an illegal search.

Malacat case - Directed by the SC to exclude evidence. Where evidence is obtained in illegal
means, it shall be inadmissible in any proceeding etc.

Natural persons are afforded protection for searches and arrests that are illegal. It does not refer
just to Filipino citizens, but also to foreigners. Both are to be secured in our persons (bodies),
houses, papers, and etc. we have privacy in our respective officers. THIS RIGHT IS SACRED.

US SC Case - right against unlawful searches and seizures applied in a person in a telephone
booth. It was declared illegal.

Does the protection therein extend to juridical persons? Private corporations and etc.

Yes, in David v. Arroyo. SC said that search is illegal because it was not covered by a search
warrant. Protection against unlawful searches and seizures extend also to juridical persons like
partnerships and corporations.

Where there is evidence obtained through illegal search and arrest, it is as a rule, inadmissible.
I'd like to invite your attention to:

People v. Bongcarawan - He carted away certain items where he was being body searched. It
was done by private security guards. He argued that it was invalid because it was not covered
by a search warrant. SC said that even assuming that Bongcarawan did not give his consent,
just the same, the evidence would still be used. The search was done without the active
intervention of the state. SC ruled that the rule on search and arrest as well as the exclusionary
rule may only be successfully invoked where search or arrest otherwise illegal is done with the
active intervention of the State.

If it is perpetrated without the State, it does not violate. Bill of rights = limitations of governmental
exercise.

This ruling merely echoes the doctrine in People v. Marte 193 SCRA 87. He sent a package
through a private courier, and the package was inspected without Marte's knowledge. It had
marijuana. He said evidence should be excluded because it was a fruit of a poisonous tree.
Done without a warrant. SC disagreed. It was done without active intervention of State. SC said
the rule of search and arrest and exclusion of evidence when the search is done with active
participation of the State.

GR 113271 Oct 16, 1997 - Management suspected that one of its employees received kickbacks.
One correspondent to that employee. Management intercepted without knowledge and
acquiescence of employee the envelope which had kickbacks. He was dismissed, and he filed
for illegal dismissal. Money submitted evidence. Counsel objected to evidence because it was
fruit of poisonous tree. SC disagreed. The search was done without any participation by the
State.

Where arrest or search would yield a positive result, the evidence obtained even if considered to
be a fruit of the poisonous tree, may still be obtained as long as it is without the participation of
the State.

In so holding, our SC does not rule out the liability of the person perpetrating such illegal search
or arrest. It may invoked where search and arrest was done with or without the active
intervention of the State, the court does not exonerate the person obtaining the illegal
evidence. SC does not give us the blanket authority to conduct illegal searches or arrest against
other persons. You are not precluded from filing a criminal case against the confiscation of
items. IMPORT OF RULINGS IN THE ABOVE THREE CASES.

Zulueta v. CA GR 107383 Feb 20, 1996 - Involves a husband and wife where wife suspected
husband to have an illicit affair. She went to the clinic of the husband, and without his
knowledge, she ransacked his personal belongings. Checked drawer and etc. and saw that
indeed her husband was in an illicit affair. She filed a case using evidence the confiscated
letters. Husband objected. He blocked the evidence stating the exclusionary rule. Wife
countered using case of Marte, where search done without active participation of State, it may
be admissible in court. Surprise of all surprise, SC said that the evidence obtained by his wife was
INADMISSIBLE. If you will ask me how to reconcile these, I CANNOT RECONCILE THIS. IF CASE
INVOLVES SPOUSES, INVOKE THIS CASE IF YOU ARE REPRESENTING THE OFFENDING PARTY. IF
OFFENDED, USE THE OTHER CASES.

If we will examine the provision, we will note that what it prohibits is unlawful search or arrests. In
other words, it allows a search and arrest, but the same be valid if it is covered by a search
warrant/warrant of arrest. It does not altogether prohibit lawful arrests/searches. For it to be
lawful, generally, it requires a warrant as the case may be.

The 1987 Constitution says that in the issuance of a warrant, it is required that:

a. Probable cause.
b. Such probable cause must be determined by the judge.
c. It must be done by the judge after oath.
d. Must describe the place particularly or the person to be arrested.

ARREST

It should be done pursuant to a warrant of arrest. A warrant of arrest is a lower court process that
authorized authorities to arrest persons. In order that any such warrant is valid, it must be issued
based on probable cause. What is it? Is it similar or to be equated with suspicion?

It should not. Probable cause refers to such facts or circumstances that would lead a reasonable
person to believe that an offense has been committed and that the person suspected is the
probable perpetrator.

What is required is mere probability, not certainty. It is not about moral certainty or proof beyond
reasonable doubt. Standard - reasonably prudent man and not the exacting calibration of a
judge.
Such probable cause must be determined PERSONALLY by the judge. The term judge includes
not just justices of the SC or CA. It includes judges of the lower courts like the MTC, MTCC, and
judges of the RTC. Simply put, all judges of the courts of law have the authority to issue a warrant
of arrest.

Morino v. Vibo 20 SCRA 542 - SC declared that even administrative bodies/tribunals may issue
warrants of arrest if only to carry out an order… SC upheld authority of BID Commissioner to issue
a warrant of arrest to carry out a final deportation order. SC ordained that the BID Commissioner
cannot issue a warrant of arrest for preliminary investigations. It can only be done IF there is a
final deportation order. General rule.

Harvey v. Santiago - In this case, Santiago issued a warrant of arrest even without a final
deportation order; however, Santiago said that she issued it because there was already a prima
facie case that Harvey was already committing a violation of laws. SC sustained. This is an
exception.

House members and etc. can give warrants of arrest. Bengson cases, Ermita, etc. where SC said
that the Congress, the Senate, or the HOR may issue a warrant of arrest if the person is already
cited in contempt for refusing to participate in legislative inquiry in aid of legislation.

Quasi-judicial bodies can cite persons in contempt for which persons can be arrested. While
constitution says that judges must find probable cause, it does not mean that only they can
provide for warrants.

Requirement: Probable cause must be personally determined by the judge after examination of
oath by complainant.

Judge must conduct personal examination. As was illustrated in the case of Microsoft v.
Maxicorp; People v. Salangguit where judge got personal examination.

Soliven v. Makasiar - SC ruled that in the issuance of a warrant of arrest, judge is no longer
required to conduct a personal examination of complainant and witnesses. Judge needs only to
examine the affidavits of the complainant, supporting, and counter-affidavits, and resolution of
the fiscal. If it comes to the issuance of a warrant of arrest, there is no need for personal
examination.

Sanctioned by Sec 5 Rule 112 of RRC - within 10 days after filing info in court, judge must
personally evaluate the recommendation of fiscal and supporting evidence. If judge finds that
there is no probable cause, the judge can dismiss the case outright. If judge finds that there is
probable cause, he can file a warrant of arrest if person is already detained. If there is doubt as
to existence, judge may direct prosecution to give additional 5 days to file additional evidence.

Sec 5 - nothing required to conduct personal examination. Only needs to examine records,
findings, and resolution of fiscal as well as supporting evidence.

While in the case above, SC ordained that the judge no longer required to get these in warrants
of arrests, judge is to come with his own and independent findings of existence of probable
cause. He is not authorized to simply rely on the findings of the fiscal. While it is true that the fiscal
has probable cause, it is for purposes of filing information. Judge has to determine existence of
probable cause for warrant of arrest. PURPOSE DIFFERS.
Earlier, I mentioned to you the provision of RRC. More or less, that tells us that there is a grace
period of 10 days before issuance of warrants of arrest. PRE-SEPT 2017: Lawyers were to file for a
motion for judicial determination of probable cause BEFORE THE CIRCULAR to determine
existence. It is done only to invite attention to judge that there are findings by the fiscal that are
not supported by evidence. Judge conducts hearing in response to that motion, so that you are
assured that the judge does not automatically give a warrant of arrest. JUST BUY TIME TO GET
BAIL, OR IF NON-BAILABLE, TO ESCAPE.

CIRCULAR IN September of 2017 for mandate of continuous trial, motion for probable cause is A
PROHIBITED MOTION. Criminal case terminated within 6 months reckoned from date of filing
information.

Name of person if known, indicate. Address must be indicated. People v. Tio Won Chua - Where
there is defect in name of the subject matter, it will not necessarily render warrant invalid. May
be cured with personal knowledge of officers. He argued that the warrant is invalid because he
is not the person therein. SC disagreed, saying that it was cured by the personal knowledge of
the officers enforcing the same. A John Doe warrant may be issued if the name is not known to
the court or the complaining body. TO BE VALID, it must be accompanied with a description
personae/personal description of person subject matter thereof. Without an accompanying
description of the person to be arrested, it is invalid.