CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights) SY 2013-2014 MEMORY AID

*A mans house is his castle English proverb *It is under jurisprudence that the Pres. is recognized w/ the authority even w/o court order to deport an alien if he/she finds that alien to be undesirable. That is w/in his EXECUTIVE PREROGATIVE. APPLICATION FOR SW (Rule 126, Sec. 2, Rules of Court) The SW may be applied in any court where any of the elements of the offense was committed. If the criminal action is being filed, the application shall be made in the court where criminal action is pending. If there is already a pending case, only the court which has original jurisdiction of the case may issue a SW. The ff. are the requirements for a valid search warrant (Sec. 2, Art. 3, 1987 Consti. & Rules of Court)

SECTION 2: Searches and Seizures

This section recognizes the right to privacy. There may be governmental intrusion provided that there is a warrant. There may be reasonable search and seizure. This right under Sec. 2 protects all persons even aliens and corporations. and seizure

Where will you apply for a SW? GENERAL RULE: Any court w/in whose territorial jurisdiction a crime was committed. CRIMLAW venue is jurisdictional. -you take in consideration the place where the crime was committed availability of witnessed and evidence; this is in favor to the accused. CIVIL LAW you take into consideration the residence of the parties.

When is search unreasonable? 2 instances:

CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS: 1.) 2.) The SW must be based upon probable cause; The probable cause must be determined personally by the judge; The determination of the existence of probable cause must be made after the examination by the judge of the complaint and the witnesses he may produce; and The warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched or the things to be seized. the searching officer is limited to what is provided in the SW.

W/ a warrant when obtained and implemented illegally. W/o a warrant if it does not fall under certain exceptions allowed by jurisprudence/law.

3.)

EXCEPTION: Because this is just a judicial process, there are exceptions for compelling reasons.

SEARCH WARRANT (Rule 126, Rules of Court) A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by the judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property described therein and to bring it b4 the court. *only PEACE OFFICERS are assigned to conduct searches and seizures. Salazar v. Achacoso Only a judge may issue a search warrant and a warrant of arrest. The issuance of a warrant is a judicial process. The provision in the Labor Code is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Only a judge and not other may issue search warrants and warrants of arrest.

It may be any court w/in the judicial region where the crime was committed. -Ex: If crime was comitted in Davao City, you can still apply for a SW in Mati for compelling reasons, Davao and Mati being w/in the same judicial region.

4.)

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS: 5.) 6.) It must be issued w/ one specific offense; and It must be used w/in the 10th day validity period.

In the place where the warrant shall be enforced. -Ex: When the crime was committed in Davao and the accused is in Mati, you can still apply in Mati for compelling reasons. Kenneth Roy v. Taypan All courts have the authority to issue a SW, even though it is filed w/ the special court w/c has jurisdiction w/ regard to the case. SW is merely a process issued by the courts in its exercise of its ancilliary jurisdiction. It is not a criminal action w/c it may entertain pursuant to its orig. Jurisdiction. The authority to issue a SW is inherent in all courts and may be affected outside their territorial jurisdiction.

PROBABLE CAUSE- such facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably prudent and discreet man to believe that an offense has been committed, and that the documents and things sought to be searched or seized, are in the possession of the person whom the warrant is issued.

GENERAL RULE: only a judge may issue a SW and WOA. EXCEPTION: Deportation of illegal and undesirable aliens whom the Pres. Or Commissioner of Immigration may order arrested. -This is in connection w/ the Presidents FOREIGN RELATIONS POWER. *There is no need for WOA if the purpose is for DEPORTATION.

*There must be certain proof that will lead to a conclusion that an offense has probably been committed; not just based on MERE SUSPICION, MERE ASSUMPTION or MERE GUESS. Atty. J: One principle to remember is that, because when you apply, you have to prove to the judge the existence of these facts and circumstances and would convince the judge that a crime has probable been committed, and the objects/things of the crime is in the possession of this particular person, or is in this particular place. So you present evidence. What kind of evidence? The first thing to remember is that facts

Sony Computer v. Supergreen

Coverage for the 2nd exam

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights) SY 2013-2014 MEMORY AID

and circumstances must be the BEST EVIDENCE to be obtained under the circumstances. probable cause to support such. HOW IS PROBABLE CAUSE DETERMINED? you believe that there are illegal firearms being possessed by this person? *The application must be in WRITING meaning that the applicant must swear to the truth of his testimony. Why? Remember that the accused or the person who owns/occupies the premises is not there to rebut your application. So one must be under oath when he applies for a SW and the witnesses he may produce, and it must be in WRITING. Why in writing? This is to allow, later on, the person who may be affected of the SW to review whether the Constitutional and statutory requirements have been complied w/. Otherwise, he can invoke invalidity of the SW. And the facts testified to by the applicant and witnesses, if any, must based on PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE. The examination must be attached to the records of the case, including all the statements and affidavits submitted to by the applicant, complainants and the witnesses, if any.

PICOP v. Asuncion A certification from the Firearms and Explosives Unit of lack license will be the best evidence to present that indeed PICOP has no license. People v. Estrada Mere saying by the applicant that he has verified from the BFAD that the accused has no license has no bearing merely selfserving! The best evidence is to get a certification from the BFAD that accused has no license to sell medicines.

Art. 3, Sec. 2, 1987 Consti. provides that the judge must PERSONALLY determine the existence of probable cause. This is understood as literal PERSONAL DETERMINATION. meaning, the judge himself must listen to the application, and determine the existence of probable cause. This func. is a JUDICIAL FUNC. and cannot be delegated even to the judges clerk of court.

Note: If there is no punishable offense alleged, there can be no probable cause. Lets take for example the case of Coca-cola v. Gomez...

Coca-cola v. Gomez Facts: Coca-Cola filed for a SW against Pepsi Cola. Pepsi has been hoarding bottles of Coke in their premises, and Coke would want to search the premises and seize the bottles. Their allegation is UNFAIR COMPETITION under the Intellectual Property Code. Held: The Intellectual Property Code does not punish hoarding of bottles as unfair competition. Theres nothing in the IPC , because it only refers to trademarks, tradenames, etc. Pepsi did not pass on the bottles as an imitation of Coke. They did not, in fact, use the bottles. Looking in the IPC, the SC said that there is nothing in the code w/c penalizes such action of Pepsi. Therefore, there is no probable cause being that there is no offense that is committed. There seems to be no violation of law.

Ruiz Case The taking of deposition and the taking of evidence is a personal task of the judge w/c he cannot delegate to the clerk of court. The Constitution requires personal determination by the judge. SW is invalid because personal determination cannot be delegated to the clerk of court.

Silva v. Presiding Officer Facts: The examination here was reduced into writing as required by the Constitution. Perusing the examination, it consisted merely of 4 leading questions, answerable by yes or no. Held: The determination must be in the form of searching questions and answers. Thus, the examination failed to conform w/ the requirement. The question must be probing not merely routinary. Not repetitious. It is repetitious if the judge merely asked, What is in the affidavit? The judge must go further than what is written in the affidavit.

*The examination must be made after affirmation under oath and examination of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. what is contemplated here is the requirement of a HEARING but it is an EX PARTE HEARING. It is a hearing only of the applicant. *This means that the judge must conduct questioning PERSONALLY! *It must be in the form of SEARCHING QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS! meaning, probing questions not LEADING QUESTIONS. What do you mean LEADING QUESTIONS? by

-Questions that are answerable by a YES or NO. The judge is merely leading the applicant. People v. Salanguit A SW is separable. It may be void in some parts. But the other parts may retain their validity if there is The judge will be asking, Why are you here? not, Are you here to apply for a SW? Why are you applying for a SW? not, Are you applying for a SW because

Prudente v. Dayrit Facts: The SW was questioned by the petitioner on the ground that it was issued based on facts and

Coverage for the 2nd exam

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights) SY 2013-2014 MEMORY AID

circumstances which were not within the personal knowledge of the applicant and his witnesses. But merely based on hearsay testimony. What does the record show? The first applicant Maj. Dinagmalig, stated that he has been informed that the accused has in his possession the firearms and explosives. Does that statement prove that he has personal knowledge of the possession of firearms? The witness of the applicant said that he has verified the report and he found it to be a fact. But he does not show how he verified it. He also said that he gathered info. from verified sources Are these statements proof of personal knowledge of the fact? Where do you usually hear these statements? The BUZZ! Because these not based on the personal knowledge of the reporter! Merely hearsay statements! Just like this applicant. He has no personal knowledge that the accused is in possession of illegal firearms. As far as he knows, someone told him from a verified source that the accused in possessing illegal firearms. So what knowledge? is personal questions. Mere affidavits therefore, and documentary evidence without probing questions is not sufficient to comply w/ the constitutional requirement of determination of probable cause. searched. It allows therefore for any designation or description that points out to the place, to the exclusion of others.

Uy v. BIR Reviewing the facts and circumstances of what happened in the case, it was shown that the intention was in Mandaue City, the police officers had no problem looking for the place in Mandaue City. There is no Hernan Cortes St. In Cebu City. It is clearly therefore a clerical error that will not automatically invalidate the SW. Uy v. BIR PRINCIPLE: If the search is not against a particular person, if the search is meant only for a particular place, there is no need to write the name of the owner or occupant of that place. If the name is wrongly or mistakenly written, it DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE SW! So long as the description of the place is sufficient. If the officer, with reasonable effort can ascertain and indentify the place intended to be searched. The name therefore of the owner/occupant of the place is irrelevant if the search is intended for a partic. place. Kelnan v. People Held: The intention of the SW is to search for the place owned by Bernard Lim, only that Bernard Lim was not there. Can they also search Kelnan? He was caught inflagrante delicto. Thus, the search maybe had in this case, even w/o a SW. Principle: The name is not relevant in the search to be conducted in the place and not against a person. People v. Salanguit This is an exception to the general rule. It does not need to be technically precise as long as there are other technical descriptions. the lot was between no. 7 & 11

ULTIMATE TEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE STATEMENT IS FROM ONES PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE: Whether one will be held liable for perjury!

*The examination must be attched in the records of the case. this is in the interest of fair-play and due process. Remeber that the application is ex parte. Meaning, one sided. So the rules and the Consti. require that the examination must be attached to the records of the case. Why? To give the person affected by the SW an opportunity to review the validity of the issuance of the SW.

People v. Mamaril Held: It may be true that there was in fact an examination of the witness and the applicant. But the fact remains that there was no evidence or document to show that there was such examination, because it was not attached to the records of the case. Therefore, the presumption is, there was no examination, and the SW was declared to be invalid!

It is the narration of facts by the applicant or the witness, should be based on what they personally see/perceive/heard/smell. Held: The facts and circumstances to show probable cause were not based on the personal knowledge of the applicant nor of his witnesses. It may be that the applicant has no personal knowledge but he must be able to show witnesses to have personal knowledge of the application. Besides, the judge in this case, issued a SW merely on the affidavit presented and the evidence. Whats lacking here? The judge did not judge the probing

PARTICULARITY OF THE PERSON TO BE SEARCHED OR THE THINGS TO BE SEIZED

PLACE TO BE SEARCHED -Jurisprudence has already estab. this rule that the description of the place is sufficient if the officer w/ the warrant can w/ reasonable effort, ascertain the place intended to be searched, and can distinguish it from other places in the community. If you can separate that partic. place from the rest of the places in the community, then there is sufficient description, that there is already particularity of the description of the place to be

Coverage for the 2nd exam

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights) SY 2013-2014 MEMORY AID

There are deposition witnesses. also of The police officers had to conduct a search in a 1,000,555 sqm property! It would seem on its face that the warrant is valid, but when executed, it turned out that the place was not described w/ particularity. If it can be held valid, it will authorize the searching officer to search the entire premises. What you have is a general warrant and you can use that for fishing expedition w/c is not allowed by the Constitution. searching officer with reasonable effort, determine and ascertain the thing to be seized. Al Ghoul v. CA (Rule of substantial similarity) The rule is substantial similarity would suffice because the constitution did not require precise description or technical

NOTE: Even if its not specific but there are sufficient records pointing out to the particular place, then that would be sufficient. People v. CA This is the general rule in relation to the case of Salanguit. GENARAL RULE: what is material in determining the validity of the search is the place stated in the warrant itself and what the applicants have in their thoughts otherwise it would concieve to the police officers of choosing the place to be searched even if not dileanated in the warrant. The place to be searched in the warrant cannot be modified or amplified w/ the officers own knowledge of the premises. People v. Francisco

description as long as they are in the same nature / kind of the things to be seized as set out in the SW. Substantial similarity of those articles described as a class or species would suffice.

Yao, Sr. v. People This is for the alleged violation of the Intellectual Property Code. There was no need to particularize the area to be search because all the structures constitutes the essential and necessary components of the petitioners business and cannot be treated separately as they formed part of the 1 hectare compound. So here the SC said that the SW has particularly described the place to be searched because the intention really is to search the entire compound.

Microsoft v. Maxicorp A SW is separable. People v. Tee Seizure of undetermined amount of marijuana. It does not need to be technically precise. As long as it can be sufficiently ascertained w/ minimal effort.

Even if it turned out that the police officers saw the accused na nagwawalis sa labas ng bahay nya, the general rule is what is material is the description set out in the SW.

What if the search is to be made in a compound? People v. Estrada Even if there was a sketch of the place, the police officers had a hard time to find the particular place where the SW should be served. Although prima facie it seems that the warrant is valid, when executed it is already invalid, when executed it is already invalid because it turned out that it has not particularly described the place to be searched. The inadequacy of the description of the residence of the residence of private respondent sought to be searched has characterized the questioned search warrant as a general warrant, which is violative of the constitutional requirement. Picop v. Asuncion

Things to be seized (Sec. 3, Rule 126, Rules of Court): Subj. of the offense Stolen or embezzeled and other proceeds, or fruits of the offense Used or intented to be used as means of committing an offense.

People v. Nunez Items are inadmissible Police officer exercised his own discretion what things to be seized. He modified the warrant. ONE SPECIFIC OFFENSE Stonehill v. Diokno A SW must be used for one specific offense. Why??? for the determination of probable cause. The things to be seized must be particularly described. General warrants are frowned upon. Consti. does not allow fishing expedition. People v. Dichoso Search is for shabu, marijuana and paraphernalia.

Rule: The things to be seized must be described w/particularity as to the person serving the warrant to identify them more or less same rule w/ particularity of the place. Kho v. Macalintal The law does not require that the things to be seized must be described in precise and minute detail as to leave no room for doubt on the part of the searching authorities. Otherwise, it would be virtually impossible for the applicants to obtain a warrant as they would not know exactly what kind of things they are looking for. In other words it does not need to be that technically precise as long as the

Coverage for the 2nd exam

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II (Bill of Rights) SY 2013-2014 MEMORY AID

Only one SW will be issued for said violations in the Dangerous Drugs Act. Same class, same specie, one search warrant. Prudente v. Dayrit Firearms, ammunitions and explosives belong to the same class. They are punished by PD 1866/ Illegal Possession of Firearms. One one SW. Badyao v. CA Drugs and Firearms Belong to diff. classes Obtain 2 SWs There are more than 1 specific offense

WARRANT OF ARREST

Arrest- it is the taking of a person into custody in order that he may be bound to answer the commission of an offense. PROBABLE CAUSE IN THE ISSUANCE OF WOA: Facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. 2 things: An offense has been committed The person to be arrested is that person who probably committed that offense

Coverage for the 2nd exam