Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

ONLINE QUIZ No.

SEARCH AND SEIZURE


PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

1. Around 12:00 midnight, a team of police officers was on routine patrol in Barangay Makatarungan when
it noticed an open delivery van neatly covered with banana leaves. Believing that the van was loaded
with contraband, the team leader flagged down the vehicle which was driven by Hades. He inquired
from Hades what was loaded on the van. Hades. just gave the police officer a blank stare and started to
perspire profusely. The police officers then told Hades that they will look inside the vehicle. Hades did
not make any reply. The police officers then lifted the banana leaves and saw several boxes. They
opened the boxes and discovered several kilos of shabu inside. Hades was charged with illegal
possession of illegal drugs. After due proceedings, he was convicted by the trial court. On appeal, the
Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction. In his final bid for exoneration, Hades went to the Supreme
Court clairring that his constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures was violated
when the police officers searched his vehicle without a warrant; that the shabu confiscated from him is
thus inadmissible in evidence; and that there being no evidence against him, he is entitled to an
acquittal. For its part, the People of the Philippines maintains that the case of Hades involved a
consented warrantless search which is legally recognized. The People adverts to the fact that Hades
did not offer any protest when the. police officers asked him if they could look inside the vehicle. Thus,
any evidence obtained in the course thereof is admissible in evidence.

Whose claim is correct? Explain. (30%)

2. Having received tips the accused was selling narcotics, two police officers forced open the door of his
room. Finding him sitting party dressed on the side of the bed, the officers spied two capsules on a
night stand beside the bed. When asked, “Are these yours?”, the accused seized the capsules and put
them in his mouth. A struggle ensued, in the course of which the officer pounced on the accused, took
him to a hospital where at their direction, a doctor forced an emetic solution though a tube into the
accused’s stomach against his will. This process induced vomiting. In the vomited matter were found
two capsules which proved to contain heroin. In the criminal case, the chief evidence against the
accused was the two capsules.

(a) As counsel for the accused, what constitutional rights will you invoke in his defense? (15%)
(b) How should the court decide the case? (15%)

3. In a criminal prosecution for murder, the prosecution presented, as witness, an employee of the Manila
Hotel who produced in court a videotape recording showing the heated exchange between the accused
and the victim that took place at the lobby of the hotel barely 30 minutes before the killing. The accused
objects to the admission of the videotape recording on the ground that it was taken without his
knowledge or consent, in violation of his right to privacy and the Anti-Wire Tapping Law. Resolve the
objection with reasons. (20%)

4. The police had suspicions that Juan Samson, member of the subversive New Proletarian Army, was
using the mail for propaganda purposes in gaining new adherents to its cause. The Chief of Police of
Bantolan, Lanao del Sur ordered the Postmaster of the town to intercept and open all mail addressed to
and coming from Juan Samson in the interest of national security. Was the order of the Chief of Police
valid? (20%)