SEPTEMBER 18, 2019

CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS

Lagman v Medealdea- what principle is stronger than political question?
COLLECTIVE JUDGMENT Principle- judgment by the Executive when affirmed by the
Legislative cannot be overturned by the court.
Doctrine of Proper Submission- A plebiscite may be held on the same day as a
regular election [Gonzales v. COMELEC, 21 SCRA 774]. The entire Constitution
must be submitted for ratification at one plebiscite only. The people must
have a proper “frame of reference”.

SEPTEMBER 24, 2019

BILL OF RIGHTS – RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEIZURE, PRIVACY

Aquino vs Aquino
Article 3, Section 2 – the right against unreasonable seizure
2 rights: 1. Issuance of valid warrant
Generally, you can not be arrested w/o warrant
Warrant- judge issues the warrant (personally examines)
Harvey vs Santiago- expansion of the power of commissioner of immigration-
criminal act against public policy, can only arrest by virtue of the final
order of the court, therefore it can only execute an existing executory order
(by the judge)
Probable cause- who determines?
1. Personally, determined by the judge- has the sole power to issue warrant
 10 days from filing
2. Prosecutor- to determine whether the case will proceed or not
Problem: DOJ said that there is No probable cause but the plaintiff still
filed the case and filed a petition for certiorari, may the court intervene?
Yes (bravo vs people)
Equipoise rule- utilized during trial only, not prelim investigation---
error of judgment not jurisdiction
3. Police officer
4. Citizen- even a citizen can determine probable cause for the purpose of
executing a citizen’s arrest
To whom invoked?
Against the State
Andal vs People- mayor is part of the State
Mapa vs People- Barangay Tanod with private person
Zulueta vs CA – privacy against spouse
Invoked by:
1. natural person
2. artificial person—cannot invoke right against self-incrimination: can
only be invoked if you will be imprisoned.
Problem: Within 2 days, judge issued warrant-determined probable cause
(voluminous record) --- not grave abuse of discretion bec, it is within the
discretionary power of the judge. (Felix vs Lim)

(Guavez vs People compare with Sipin vs People)

Sipin vs People-Administrative duties; if not followed will not affect the

integrity of the evidence presented but will cause the administrative liability
(admissibility cannot be questioned) --- cannot invoke bill of rights
Jail guard as to Prisoner, can invoke art 3 sec 2.
Violation of Art 3, S2; effect:
Exclusionary rule (found in the constitution Art 3, Sec 3 par 2) filed or
applied only if it is so expressly provided for by the constitution or by a
particular law. Even if the manner of obtaining the evidence is in violation
of a certain law but the law does not declare that the evidence is inadmissible,
then such evidence will be admissible.

Waiver of issuance of evidence- procedural right

Legality of evidence- substantive right
Not pleaded voluntarily- will not amount to waiver.
Plea- acknowledgment of jurisdiction of court
Requisites for valid warrant of arrest
1. Probable cause; Personally determined by the judge; after personal
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce; must particularly describe the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Requisites for the issuance of search warrant:

 1. Probable cause; Personally determined by the judge; after personal
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce; must particularly describe the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Subject: property (personal, any piece of evidence that is to be seized)

laud vs People; characterized the body of woman as personal property (special)
could be subject of warrant
scattered shock warrant- general warrant (not allowed)

Requisites of valid warrantless arrest

1. In flagrante delicto – happened in his presence; personal knowledge is
not necessary
Luz vs People (2012); 2016 BAR- bringing the accused in the detention is not a
valid warrant of arrest. Arrest is the taking of a person into custody in order
that he or she may be bound to answer for the commission of an offense. It is
effected by an actual restraint of the person to be arrested or by that persons
voluntary submission to the custody of the one making the arrest. Neither the
application of actual force, manual touching of the body, or physical restraint,
nor a formal declaration of arrest, is required. It is enough that there be an
intention on the part of one of the parties to arrest the other, and that there
be an intent on the part of the other to submit, under the belief and impression
that submission is necessary.
2. Hot pursuit- must have personal knowledge
3. Escaped prisoners
Swerving is not a crime, it is merely and indicator that a crime may have been
committed.
Aruta vs People; no personal knowledge of the crime committed. The Court ruled
that in warrantless searches, probable cause must only be based on reasonable
ground of suspicion or belief that a crime has been committed or is about to
be committed. There is no hard and fast rule or fixed formula in determining
probable cause for its determination varies according to the facts of each
case. Accused-appellant Aruta cannot be said to be committing a crime. Neither
was she about to commit one nor had she just committed a crime. Accused-
appellant was merely crossing the street and was not acting in any manner that
would engender a reasonable ground for the NARCOM agents to suspect and conclude
that she was committing a crime. It was only when the informant pointed to
accused-appellant and identified her to the agents as the carrier of the
marijuana that she was singled out as the suspect. This the Court could neither
sanction nor tolerate as it is a clear violation of the constitutional guarantee
against unreasonable search and seizure. Neither was there any semblance of
any compliance with the rigid requirements of probable cause and 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 in fact just been committed, and he has personal
knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it;
and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped ***
A warrantless arrest under the circumstances contemplated under Section 5(a)
has been denominated as one "in flagrante delicto," while that under Section
5(b) has been described as a "hot pursuit" arrest.
Turning to valid warrantless searches, they are limited to the following:
(1) customs searches;
(2) the search of moving vehicles;
(3) seizure of evidence in plain view;
(4) consent searches;
(5) a search incidental to a lawful arrest; and
(6) (6) a "stop and frisk."
Malacat vs CA (rapid eye movements) Here, there could have been no valid in
flagrante delicto or hot pursuit arrest preceding the search in light of the
lack of personal knowledge on the part of Yu, the arresting officer, or an
overt physical act, on the part of petitioner, indicating that a crime had just
been committed, was being committed or was going to be committed.
Requisites of plain view
1. Inadvertence of discovery (most impt) – seen in the naked eye only, no
positive action

Right to privacy – invoked against state, exclusionary rule automatically

applies,
Privilege communication as to confidentiality declared by law, the ff must be
added:
- Declaration of confidentiality
- Inadmissible in evidence (Estrada vs People-bank secrecy law)
Eugenio vs Republic court denied outrightly the motion for subpoena.
Even if the bank inquiry order may be availed of without need of a pre-existing
case under the AMLA, it does not follow that such order may be availed of ex
parte. There are several reasons why the AMLA does not generally sanction ex
parte applications and issuances of the bank inquiry order. However, sufficient
for our purposes, we can assert there is a right to privacy governing bank
accounts in the Philippines, and that such right finds application to the case
at bar. The source of such right is statutory, expressed as it is in R.A. No.
1405 otherwise known as the Bank Secrecy Act of 1955.
Because of the Bank Secrecy Act, the confidentiality of bank deposits remains
a basic state policy in the Philippines. Subsequent laws, including the AMLA,
may have added exceptions to the Bank Secrecy Act, yet the secrecy of bank
deposits still lies as the general rule. It falls within the zones of privacy
recognized by our laws. The framers of the 1987 Constitution likewise
recognized that bank accounts are not covered by either the right to information
under Section 7, Article III or under the requirement of full public
disclosure under Section 28, Article II. Unless the Bank Secrecy Act is
repealed or amended, the legal order is obliged to conserve the absolutely
confidential nature of Philippine bank deposits.
Any exception to the rule of absolute confidentiality must be specifically
legislated

Effect: exclusionary rule;

RA 4200 anti-wiretapping law
- must be authorized by the persons subject to private communication
- Statutory privilege
- Invoked by any person who
- Both applicable to both private and state