memory aid consti den

8/12/2019 Memory Aid Consti Den

1/5

o g ts

SY 2013-2014 MEMORY AID

Coverage for the 2nd exam

*A mans house is his castle English

proverb

This section recognizes the rightto privacy.

There may be governmentalintrusion provided that there is a

warrant.

There may be reasonablesearch and seizure.

This right under Sec. 2 protectsall persons even aliens and

corporations.

When is search and seizure

unreasonable?

2 instances:

W/ a warrantwhen obtainedand implemented illegally.

W/o a warrant if it does notfall under certain exceptions

allowed by jurisprudence/law.

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 ajudge may issue a searchwarrant and a warrant of arrest.

The issuance of a warrant is ajudicial process.

The provision in the Labor Codeis UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Only a judge and not other mayissue search warrants and

warrants of arrest.

GENERAL RULE: only a judge may issue aSW 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.

*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)

Where will you apply for a SW?

GENERAL RULE: Any court w/in whose

territorial jurisdiction a crime was

committed.

CRIMLAW venue isjurisdictional.

-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 intoconsideration the residence of the

parties.

EXCEPTION:

Because this is just a judicial process, there

are exceptions for compelling reasons.

It may be any court w/in thejudicial 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.

In the place where the warrantshall 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 toissue 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 bythe courts in its exercise of its

ancilliary jurisdiction.

It is not a criminal action w/c itmay entertain pursuant to its

orig. Jurisdiction.

The authority to issue a SW isinherent in all courts and may be

affected outside their territorial

jurisdiction.

Sony Computer v. Supergreen

The SW may be applied in anycourt where any of the elements

of the offense was committed.

If the criminal action is beingfiled, the application shall be

made in the court where crimina

action is pending.

If there is already a pendingcase, 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)

CONSTITUTIONAL

REQUIREMENTS:

1.) The SW must be based uponprobable cause;

2.) The probable cause must bedetermined personally by the

judge;3.) The determination of the

existence of probable cause mus

be made after the examination

by the judge of the complaint and

the witnesses he may produce

and

4.) The warrant must particularlydescribe the place to be searched

or the things to be seized. the

searching officer is limited to

what is provided in the SW.

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS:

5.) It must be issued w/ one specificoffense; and

6.) It must be used w/in the 10thdayvalidity period.

PROBABLE CAUSE- such facts and

circumstances as would lead a reasonably

prudent and discreet man to believe that anoffense has been committed, and that the

documents and things sought to be

searched or seized, are in the possession o

the person whom the warrant is issued.

*There must be certain proof that wil

lead to a conclusion that an offensehas 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 proveto the judge the existence of these factsand 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 particulaperson, or is in this particular place. So you

present evidence. What kind of evidence?

The first thing to remember is that facts

SECTION 2: Searches and Seizures


2/5

o g ts



and circumstances must be the BEST

EVIDENCE to be obtained under the

circumstances.

PICOP v. Asuncion

A certification from theFirearms 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 thathe has verified from the BFAD

that the accused has no license

has no bearing merely self-

serving!

The best evidence is to get acertification from the BFAD that

accused has no license to sell

medicines.

Note: If there is no punishable offensealleged, 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 wantto search the premises and seize

the bottles. Their allegation is

UNFAIR COMPETITION under the

Intellectual Property Code.

Held:

The Intellectual Property Codedoes 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 bott les.

Looking in the IPC, the SC saidthat 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.

People v. Salanguit

A SW is separable. It maybe void in some parts. But

the other parts may retain

their validity if there is

probable cause to support

such.

HOW IS PROBABLE CAUSE

DETERMINED?

Art. 3, Sec. 2, 1987 Consti.

provides that the judge must

PERSONALLY determine theexistence of probable cause. This

is understood as literal

PERSONAL DETERMINATION.

meaning, the judge himself must

listen to the application, anddetermine the existence of

probable cause. This func. is a

JUDICIAL FUNC. and cannot be

delegated even to the judges

clerk of court.

Ruiz Case

The taking of deposition andthe taking of evidence is a

personal task of the judgew/c he cannot delegate to

the clerk of court. The

Constitution requires

personal determination by

the judge.

SW is invalid becausepersonal determination

cannot be delegated to the

clerk of court.

*The examination must be

made after affirmation under

oath and examination of thecomplainant and the

witnesses he may produce.

what is contemplated here isthe requirement of aHEARING but it is an EXPARTE 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 byLEADING QUESTIONS?

-Questions that are

answerable by a YES or NO.

The judge is merely leading

the applicant.

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

you believe that there are

illegal firearms being

possessed by this person?

*The application must be inWRITING meaning that the

applicant must swear to the

truth of his testimony. Why?

Remember that the accusedor the person who

owns/occupies the premises

is not there to rebut youapplication. So one must be

under oath when he appliesfor a SW and the witnesses hemay produce, and it must be

in WRITING. Why in writing?

This is to allow, later on, the

person who may be affectedof the SW to review whether

the Constitutional and

statutory requirements have

been complied w/. Otherwisehe can invoke invalidity of the

SW. And the facts testified toby the applicant and

witnesses, if any, must based

on PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE

The examination must be

attached to the records of thecase, including all the

statements and affidavits

submitted to by the applicantcomplainants and the

witnesses, if any.

Silva v. Presiding Officer

Facts:

The examination here wasreduced into writing as required

by the Constitution. Perusing the

examination, it consisted merely

of 4 leading questionsanswerable by yes or no.

Held:

The determination must be in the

form of searching questions andanswers. Thus, the examination

failed to conform w/ the

requirement.

The question must be probing

not merely routinary. No

repetitious.

It is repetitious if the judgemerely asked, What is in the

affidavit? The judge must go

further than what is written in

the affidavit.

Prudente v. Dayrit

Facts:

The SW was questioned by the

petitioner on the ground that i

was issued based on facts and


3/5

o g ts



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 hasbeen 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 saidthat 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 gatheredinfo. 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 thepersonal 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 sourcethat the accused in possessing

illegal firearms.

So what is personal

knowledge?

It is the narration of facts by the

applicant or the witness, shouldbe based on what they personallysee/perceive/heard/smell.

Held:

The facts and circumstances toshow probable cause were notbased on the personal knowledge

of the applicant nor of his

witnesses.

It may be that the applicant has

no personal knowledge but hemust be able to show witnessesto have personal knowledge of

the application.

Besides, the judge in this case,

issued a SW merely on the

affidavit presented and theevidence.

Whats lacking here? The judgedid not judge the probing

questions.

Mere affidavits therefore, and

documentary evidence withoutprobing questions is not sufficientto comply w/ the constitutional

requirement of determination of

probable cause.

ULTIMATE TEST TODETERMINE 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 interestof fair-play and due process.

Remeber that the application

is ex parte. Meaning, onesided. So the rules and the

Consti. require that the

examination must be attached

to the records of the case.

Why? To give the personaffected by the SW an

opportunity to review thevalidity of the issuance of the

SW.

People v. Mamaril

Held:

It may be true that there was infact 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, andthe SW was declared to be

invalid!

PARTICULARITY OF THE PERSON TO BE

SEARCHED OR THE THINGS TO BESEIZED

PLACE TO BE SEARCHED

-Jurisprudence has alreadyestab. this rule that the

description of the place issufficient if the officer w/ the

warrant can w/ reasonable

effort, ascertain the place

intended to be searched, and

can distinguish it from otherplaces in the community. Ifyou 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

searched. It allows therefore

for any designation o

description that points out to

the place, to the exclusion o

others.

Uy v. BIR

Reviewing the facts andcircumstances of what happenedin the case, it was shown that the

intention was in Mandaue City

the police officers had noproblem looking for the place in

Mandaue City. There is no

Hernan Cortes St. In Cebu City

It is clearly therefore a clericaerror that will not automaticallyinvalidate the SW.

Uy v. BIR

PRINCIPLE: If the search is noagainst a particular person, if the

search is meant only for a

particular place, there is no need

to write the name of the owner ooccupant of that place. If the

name is wrongly or mistakenly

written, it DOES NOT

INVALIDATE THE SW! So long asthe description of the place is

sufficient. If the officer, with

reasonable effort can ascertain

and indentify the place intendedto be searched

The name therefore of theowner/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 tosearch 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 beconducted in the place and

not against a person.

People v. Salanguit

This is an exception to the general rule.

It does not need to betechnically precise as long

as there are other technicadescriptions. the lot wasbetween no. 7 & 11


4/5

o g ts



There are alsodeposition ofwitnesses.

NOTE: Even if its not specific but there are

sufficient records pointing out to the

particular place, then that would besufficient.

People v. CA

This is the general rule in relation to thecase of Salanguit.

GENARAL RULE: what is material in

determining the validity of the search is the

place stated in the warrant itself and whatthe applicants have in their thoughtsotherwise 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 inthe warrant cannot bemodified or amplified w/ the

officers own knowledge ofthe premises.

People v. Francisco

Even if it turned out that thepolice officers saw theaccused na nagwawalis sa

labas ng bahay nya, the

general rule is what is

material is the descriptionset out in the SW.

What if the search is to be made in a

compound?

People v. Estrada

Even if there was a sketchof the place, the police

officers had a hard time to

find the particular place

where the SW should beserved.

Although prima facie itseems that the warrant is

valid, when executed it is

already invalid, whenexecuted 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 besearched has characterized

the questioned searchwarrant as a general

warrant, which is violative of

the constitutional

requirement.

Picop v. Asuncion

The police officers hadto conduct a search ina 1,000,555 sqm

property!

It would seem on itsface that the warrant is

valid, but when

executed, it turned outthat the place was not

described w/

particularity.

If it can be held valid,it will authorize thesearching officer tosearch the entire

premises.

What you have is ageneral warrant andyou can use that for

fishing expedition w/c

is not allowed by the

Constitution.

Yao, Sr. v. People

This is for the alleged violation ofthe Intellectual Property Code.

There was no need toparticularize the area to besearch because all the structures

constitutes the essential andnecessary components of thepetitioners business and cannot

be treated separately as they

formed part of the 1 hectare

compound. So here the SC saidthat the SW has particularly

described the place to be

searched because the intention

really is to search the entire

compound.

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 asmeans of committing an offense.

Rule: The things to be seized must bedescribed w/particularity as to the

person serving the warrant to identifythem more or less same rule w/

particularity of the place.

Kho v. Macalintal

The law does not requirethat the things to be seized

must be described in preciseand minute detail as to

leave no room for doubt on

the part of the searching

authorities. Otherwise, itwould be virtually

impossible for the applicants

to obtain a warrant as they

would not know exactlywhat kind of things they are

looking for.

In other words it does notneed to be that technically

precise as long as the

searching officer with

reasonable effort,determine and ascertain

the thing to be seized.

Al Ghoul v. CA

(Rule ofsubstantial

similarity)

The rule is substantiasimilarity would suffice

because the

constitution did norequire precise

description or technical

description as long as theyare in the same nature /

kind of the things to be

seized as set out in the SW.

Substantial similarity othose articles described

as a class or specieswould suffice.

Microsoft v. Maxicorp

A SW isseparable.People v. Tee

Seizure oundetermined amoun

of marijuana.

It does not need to betechnically precise.

As long as it can besufficiently ascertained

w/ minimal effort.

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 onespecific offense. Why??? for

the determination ofprobablecause.

The things to be seized must beparticularly described.

General warrants are frownedupon.

Consti. does not allow fishingexpedition.

People v. Dichoso

Search is for shabu, marijuanaand paraphernalia.


5/5

o g ts



Only one SW will be issued forsaid violations in the DangerousDrugs Act.

Same class, same specie, onesearch warrant.

Prudente v. Dayrit

Firearms, ammunitions andexplosives 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

Arrest- it is the taking of a person into

custody in order that he may be bound toanswer the commission of an offense.

PROBABLE CAUSE IN THE ISSUANCE

OF WOA:

Facts and circumstances whichwould 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 committedthat offense

WARRANT OF ARREST

memory aid consti den

Documents