Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
People v. Marti, Protection does not cover acts of private What is the case all
G.R. No. 81561 individuals about?
If the search is made upon the request of law
enforcers, a warrant must generally be first secured Is the right available to
if it is to pass the test of constitutionality. However, acts of private
if the search is made at the behest or initiative of individuals?
the proprietor of a private establishment for its No.
own and private purposes, as in the case at bar, and
without the intervention of police authorities, the
right against unreasonable search and seizure
cannot be invoked for only the act of private
individual, not the law enforcers, is involved. In
sum, the protection
against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot
be extended to acts committed
by private individuals so as to bring it within the
ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the
government.
People v. Asis Waiver is possible; but must be personal; and What is the case all
requisites must be strictly observed about?
Villamor y Tayson Warrant of Arrest: waiver happens if objection is What is the case all
v. People, G.R. No. belatedly made; but exclusionary rule still applies about?
200396 The Court is aware that any question regarding the
legality of a warrantless arrest must be Can the objection to the
raised before arraignment. Failure to do so invalidity of the warrant
constitutes a waiver of the right to question the of arrest be made
legality of the arrest especially when the accused anytime?
actively participated during trial as in this case. No.
However, we have clarified that such waiver is
only confined to the defects of the arrest and not on Will the exclusionary rule
the inadmissibility of the evidence seized during be affected?
an illegal arrest. No.
Comerciante y Meaning of Exclusionary Rule What is the case all
Gonzales v. People, Section 2, Article III of the Constitution mandates about?
G.R. No. 205926, that a search and seizure must be carried out
July 22, 2015 through or on the strength of a judicial warrant What does the fruit of the
predicated upon the existence of probable cause; in poisonous tree mean?
the absence of such warrant, such search and
seizure becomes, as a general rule, "unreasonable"
within the meaning of said constitutional
provision. To protect people from unreasonable
searches and seizures, Section 3 (2), Article III of the
Constitution provides an exclusionary rule which
instructs that evidence obtained and confiscated on
the occasion of such unreasonable searches and
seizures are deemed tainted and should be
excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a
poisonous tree. In other words, evidence obtained
from unreasonable searches and seizures shall be
inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any
proceeding.
2
WARRANT OF ARREST
|||
3
Thus, the determination of probable cause by the judge is not
inferior to the public prosecutor. In fact, this power of
the judge is constitutionally guaranteed.
People v. Grey, Third Requisite: After personal examination What is the case all
G.R. No. about?
180109, July 26, In Soliven v. Makasiar, the Court explained that this
2010 constitutional provision does not mandatorily require
the judge to personally examine the complainant and her What does
witnesses. Instead, he may opt to personally evaluate the "personal
report and supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor examination"
or he may disregard the prosecutor's report and require the require? Does it
submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses. require a trial type
Thus, in Soliven, we said: proceeding?
No
What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and
personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of
the existence ofprobable cause. In satisfying himself of the
existence of probable cause for the issuance of
a warrant of arrest, the judge is not required to personally
examine the complainant and his witnesses. Following
established doctrine and procedure, he shall: (1) personally
evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted
by the fiscal regarding the existence of probable cause and, on
the basis thereof, issue a warrant ofarrest; or (2) if on the basis
thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the
fiscal's report and require the submission of supporting
affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as
to the existence of probable cause.
Sound policy dictates this procedure, otherwise judges would
be unduly laden with the preliminary examination and
investigation of criminal complaints instead of concentrating
on hearing and deciding cases filed before their courts.
The Court has also ruled that the personal examination of the
complainant and his witnesses is not mandatory and
indispensable in the determination of probable cause for the
issuance of a warrant of arrest. The necessity arises only when
there is an utter failure of the evidence to show the existence
of probable cause. Otherwise, the judge may rely on the report
of the investigating prosecutor, provided that he likewise
evaluates the documentary evidence in support thereof.
Pfleider v. The examination must require personal knowledge and not What is the case all
People, G.R. hearsay evidence about?
No. 208001 June
19, 2017 When In Agcaoili v. Aquino, a case involving parties that were
members of the bench, this Court made a categorical ruling Can hearsay
that hearsay evidence cannot be the basis of probable cause for evidence be the
the issuance of a warrant of arrest. A witness can testify only basis of probable
to those facts which he knows of his personalknowledge, that cause for the
is, which are derived from his own perception. Hearsay issuance of
evidence, therefore, has no probative value whatsoever. warrant of arrest?
No
Pangandaman Fourth Requisite: Persons must be particularly described What is the case all
v. Casar, G.R. Insofar, however, as said warrant is issued against fifty (50) about?
No. 71782, April "John Does" not one of whom the witnesses to the complaint
14, 1988 could or would identify, it is of the nature of a general warrant,
one of a class of writs long proscribed as unconstitutional and
once anathematized as "totally subversive of the liberty of the Are general
subject." Clearly violative of the constitutional injunction that warrants allowed?
warrants of arrest should particularly describe the person or No.
persons to be seized, the warrant must, as regards its
unidentified subjects, be voided.
Ongcoma Hadji Warrantless Arrest: In Flagrante What is the case all
Homar v. Section 5, Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Criminal about?
People, G.R. Procedure provides the only occasions when a person may be
No. 182534 , lawfully arrested without a warrant. In the present case, the What does in
September 2, respondent alleged that the petitioner's warrantless arrest was flagrante arrest
2015 due to his commission of jaywalking in flagrante delicto and in mean?
the presence of Tan and Tangcoy.
5
to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the
presence of or within the view of the arresting officer.
Go y Warrantless Arrest: Personal knowledge that a crime has just What is the case all
Tambunting v. been committed about?
Court of
Appeals, G.R. Petitioner's "arrest" took place six (6) days after the When is there
No. 101837, shooting of Maguan. The "arresting" officers obviously were "personal
February 11, not present, within the meaning ofSection 5(a), at the time knowledge" that a
1992 petitioner had allegedly shot Maguan. Neither could the crime "has just"
"arrest" effected six (6) days after the shooting be reasonably been committed?
regarded as effected "when [the shooting had] in fact just been
committed" within the meaning of Section 5 (b). Moreover,
none of the "arresting" officers had any "personal
knowledge" of facts indicating that petitioner was the gunman
who had shot Maguan. The information upon which the police
acted had been derived from statements made by alleged
eyewitnesses to the shooting — one stated that petitioner was
the gunman; another was able to take down the alleged
gunman's car's plate number which turned out to be registered
6
in petitioner's wife's name. That information did not, however,
constitute "personal knowledge."
7
enumerated above was present to justify appellant Kizaki's
warrantless arrest
8
SEARCH WARRANT
Santos v. Pryce First Requisite: Probable Cause What is the case all
Gases, Inc., G.R. Probable cause for a search warrant is defined about?
No. 165122, as such facts and circumstances which would lead a
November 23, 2007 reasonably discrete and prudent man to believe that an Define probable cause
offense has been committed and that the objects for issuance of search
sought in connection with the offense warrants.
are in the place sought to be searched.
9
2000; (2) an examination personally conducted by then
Presiding Judge Lanzanas, in the form of searching
questions and answers, in writing and under oath, of
the complainant and witnesses on facts personally
known to them; and (3) the taking of sworn statements,
together with the affidavits submitted, which were
duly attached to the records.
In determining probable cause in the issuance of
a search warrant, the oath required must refer to the
truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the
applicant or his witnesses, because the purpose thereof
is to convince the committing magistrate, not the
individual making the affidavit and seeking the
issuance of the warrant, of the existence
of probable cause.
Hon Ne Chan v. Test: No discretion on the part of officers What is the case all
Honda Motor Co., It is elemental that in order to be valid, about?
Ltd., G.R. No. a search warrant must particularly describe the place
172775, December to be searched and the things to be seized. The What are the tests to
19, 2007 constitutional requirement of determine the validity
reasonable particularity of description of the things to of the warrant as
10
be seized is primarily meant to enable the law regards its
enforcers serving the warrant to: (1) readily identify particularity?
the properties to be seized and thus prevent them from
seizing the wrong items; and (2) leave said peace
officers with no discretion regarding the articles to be
seized and thus prevent unreasonable searches and
seizures. It is not, however, required 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.
Caballes y Taiño v. Warrantless Search: Waiver What is the case all
Court of Appeals, about?
G.R. No. 136292, This Court is not unmindful of cases upholding the
January 15, 2002 validity of consented warrantless searches and seizure. What are the requisites
But in these cases, the police officers' request to search of a consented search?
personnel effects was orally articulated to the accused
and in such language that left no room for doubt that
the latter fully understood what was requested. In
some instance, the accused even verbally replied to the
request demonstrating that he also understood the
nature and consequences of such request.
In Asuncion vs. Court of Appeals, the apprehending
officers sought the permission of petitioner to search
the car, to which the latter agreed. Petitioner therein
himself freely gave his consent to said search. In People
vs. Lacerna, the appellants who were riding in a taxi
were stopped by two policemen who asked
permission to search the vehicle and the appellants
readily agreed. In upholding the validity of the
consented search, the Court held that appellant
himself who was "urbanized in mannerism and
speech" expressly said that he was consenting to the
search as he allegedly had nothing to hide and had
done nothing wrong. In People vs. Cuizon, the accused
admitted that they signed a written permission stating
that they freely consented to the search of their
luggage by the NBI agents to determine if they were
carrying shabu. In People vs. Montilla, it was held that
the accused spontaneously performed affirmative acts
of volition by himself opening the bag without being
forced or intimidated to do so, which acts should
properly be construed as a clear waiver of his right.
In People vs. Omaweng, the police officers asked the
accused if they could see the contents of his bag to
which the accused said "you can see the contents but
those are only clothings." Then the policemen asked if
they could open and see it, and accused answered "you
11
can see it." The Court said there was a valid consented
search.
In case of consented searches or waiver of the
constitutional guarantee against obtrusive searches, it
is fundamental that to constitute awaiver, it must first
appear that (1) the right exists; (2) that the person
involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive,
of the existence of such right; and (3) the said person
had an actual intention to relinquish the right.
People v. Johnson, Airport Security is a form of waiver What is the case all
G.R. No. 138881, The methamphetamine hydrochloride seized from her about?
December 18, 2000 during the routine frisk at the airport was acquired
legitimately pursuant to airportsecurity procedures.
Persons may lose the protection of the search and
seizure clause by exposure of their persons or property
to the public in a manner reflecting a lack of subjective
expectation of privacy, which expectation society is
prepared to recognize as reasonable. Such recognition
is implicit in airport security procedures. With
increased concern over airplane hijacking and
terrorism has come increased security at the nation's
airports. Passengers attempting to board an aircraft
routinely pass through metal detectors; their carry-on
baggage as well as checked luggage are routinely
subjected to x-ray scans. Should these procedures
suggest the presence of suspicious objects, physical
searches are conducted to determine what the objects
are. There is little question that such searches are
reasonable, given their minimal intrusiveness, the
gravity of the safety interests involved, and the
reduced privacy expectations associated with airline
travel. Indeed, travelers are often notified
through airportpublic address systems, signs, and
notices in their airline tickets that they are subject to
search and, if any prohibited materials or substances
are found, such would be subject to seizure. These
announcements place passengers on notice that
ordinary constitutional protections against
warrantless searches and seizures do not apply to
routine airport procedures.
12
police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate
him, and pat him for weapon(s):
"...(W)here a police officer observes an unusual
conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in
light of his experience that criminal activity may be
afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing
may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the
course of investigating this behavior he identified
himself as a policeman and makes reasonable
inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the
encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his
own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection
of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully
limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in
an attempt to discover weapons which might be used
to assault him. Such a search is a reasonable search
under the Fourth Amendment, and any weapon seized
may properly be introduced in evidence against the
person from whom they were taken."
In allowing such a search, the United States Supreme
Court held that the interest of effective crime
prevention and detection allows a police officer to
approach a person, in appropriate circumstances and
manner, for purposes of investigating possible
criminal behavior even though there is insufficient
probable cause to make an actual arrest.
People v. Calantiao Warrantless Search: Incident to a Lawful Arrest What is the case all
y Dimalanta, G.R. The purpose of allowing a warrantless search and about?
No. 203984, June seizure incident to a lawful arrest is "to protect the
18, 2014 arresting officer from being harmed by the person What is the principle
arrested, who might be armed with a concealed behind allowing
weapon, and to prevent the latter from destroying searches during a
evidence within reach." It is therefore a reasonable lawful arrest?
exercise of the State's police power to protect (1) law
enforcers from the injury that may be inflicted on them
by a person they have lawfully arrested; and (2)
evidence from being destroyed by the arrestee. It seeks
to ensure the safety of the arresting officers and the
integrity of the evidence under the control and within
the reach of the arrestee.
In People v. Valeroso, this Court had the occasion to
reiterate the permissible reach of a
valid warrantless search and
seizure incident to alawful arrest, viz.:
When an arrest is made, it is reasonable for the
arresting officer to search the person arrested in order
to remove any weapon that the latter might use in
13
order to resist arrest or effect his escape. Otherwise, the
officer's safety might well be endangered, and the
arrest itself frustrated. In addition, it is entirely
reasonable for the arresting officer to search for and
seize any evidence on the arrestee's person in order to
prevent its concealment or destruction.
Moreover, in lawful arrests, it becomes both the duty
and the right of the apprehending officers to conduct
a warrantless search not only on the person of the
suspect, but also in the permissible area within the
latter's reach. Otherwise stated, a valid arrest allows
the seizure of evidence or dangerous weapons
either on the person of the one arrested or within the
area of his immediate control. The phrase "within the
area of his immediate control" means the area from
within which he might gain possession of a weapon or
destructible evidence. A gun on a table or in a drawer
in front of one who is arrested can be as dangerous to
the arresting officer as one concealed in the clothing of
the person arrested. (Citations omitted.)
Sy y Tibagong v. Arrest must precede the search What is the case all
People, G.R. No. In searches incident to a lawful arrest, about?
182178, August 15, the arrest must precede the search; generally, the
2011 process cannot be reversed. Nevertheless, a search
substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can
precede the arrest if the police have probable cause to
make the arrest at the outset of the search. Although
probable cause eludes exact and concrete definition, it
ordinarily signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion
supported by circumstances sufficiently strong in
themselves to warrant a cautious man to believe that
the person accused is guilty of the offense with which
he is charged.
Roldan, Jr. v. Arca, Warrantless Search: Search of Vessel What is the case all
G.R. No. L-25434, Search and seizure without search warrant of vessels about?
July 25, 1975 and air crafts for violations of the customs laws have
been the traditional exception to the constitutional What is the reason
requirement of a search warrant, because the vessel behind not requiring
can be quickly moved out of the locality or jurisdiction search warrants for
in which the searchwarrant must be sought before vessel?
such warrant could be secured; hence it is not
practicable to require a search warrant before
such search or seizure can be constitutionally effected
(Papa vs. Mago, L-27360, Feb. 28, 1968, 22 SCRA 857,
871-74; Magoncia vs. Palacio, 80 Phil. 770, 774; Carroll
vs. U.S. 267, pp. 132, 149, 158; Justice Fernando, The
14
Bill of Rights, 1972 ed., p. 225; Gonzales, Philippine
Constitutional Law, 1966 ed., p. 300).
The same exception should apply to seizures of fishing
vessels breaching our fishery laws: They are usually
equipped with powerful motors that enable them to
elude pursuing ships of the Philippine Navy or Coast
Guard.
People v. Bagista y Warrantless Search: Moving Vehicles What is the case all
Bangco, G.R. No. With regard to the search of moving vehicles, this had about?
86218, September been justified on the ground that the mobility of motor
18, 1992 vehicles makes it possible for the vehicle to be searched What is the limitation
to move out of the locality or jurisdiction in which the for warrantless
warrant must be sought. searches for moving
This in no way, however, gives the police officers vehicles?
unlimited discretion to conduct warrantless searches
of automobiles in the absence of probable cause. When
a vehicle is stopped and subjected to an extensive
search, such a warrantless search has been held to be
valid only as long as the officers conducting the search
have reasonable or probable cause to believe before the
search that they will find the instrumentality or
evidence pertaining to a crime, in the vehicle to be
searched.
16
another until something incriminating at last
emerges."
17
E. RIGHT TO PRIVACY
Spouses Hing v. Test to Determine Violation of Right to Privacy What is the case all about?
Choachuy, Sr., G.R. In ascertaining whether there is a violation of
No. 179736, June 26, the right to privacy, courts use the "reasonable
2013 expectation of privacy" test. This test What is the test to determine
determines whether a person has a reasonable the violation of the right to
expectation of privacy and whether the privacy?
expectation has been violated. In Ople v. TEST:
Torres, we enunciated that "the reasonableness (1) whether, by his conduct,
of a person's expectation of privacy depends the individual has exhibited
on a two-part test: (1) whether, by his conduct, an expectation of privacy;
the individual has exhibited an expectation of and
privacy; and (2) this expectation is one that (2) this expectation is one
society recognizes as reasonable." Customs, that society recognizes as
community norms, and practices may, reasonable."
therefore, limit or extend an individual's
"reasonable expectation of privacy." Hence,
the reasonableness of a person's expectation of
privacy must be determined on a case-to-case
basis since it depends on the factual
circumstances surrounding the case.
Zulueta v. CA Husband and wife privacy What is the case all about?
The documents and papers in question are
inadmissible in evidence. The constitutional Are the acts done by the
injunction declaring the privacy of communication wife valid?
and correspondence [to be] inviolable is no less No, they are unconstitutional
applicable simply because it is the wife (who thinks and the documents are
herself aggrieved by her husbands infidelity) who inadmissible as evidence.
is the party against whom the constitutional
provision is to be enforced.
18
The law insures absolute freedom of
communication between the spouses by making
it privileged. Neither husband nor wife may testify
for or against the other without the consent of the
affected spouse while the marriage subsists.
Neither may be examined without the consent of
the other as to any communication received in
confidence by one from the other during the
marriage, save for specified exceptions. But one
thing is freedom of communication; quite
another is a compulsion for each one to share
what one knows with the other. And this has
nothing to do with the duty of fidelity that each
owes to the other.
Lee v. Ilagan Particulars of a Writ of Habeas Data and What is the case all about?
Justification for its issuance
What is the purpose of the
In this case, the Court finds that Ilagan was not Writ of Habeas Data?
able to sufficiently allege that his right to privacy It was conceptualized as a
in life, liberty or security was or would be violated judicial remedy enforcing the
through the supposed reproduction and right to privacy, most
threatened dissemination of the subject sex video. especially the right to
While Ilagan purports a privacy interest in the informational privacy of
suppression of this video – which he fears would individuals, which is defined as
somehow find its way to Quiapo or be uploaded in “the right to control the
the internet for public consumption – he failed to collection, maintenance, use,
explain the connection between such interest and and dissemination of data about
any violation of his right to life, liberty or security. oneself.”
Indeed, courts cannot speculate or contrive
versions of possible transgressions. As the rules What must a Petition for
and existing jurisprudence on the matter evoke, Habeas Data show to allow its
alleging and eventually proving the nexus issuance?
between one’s privacy right to the cogent rights to The petition must adequately
life, liberty or security are crucial in habeas show that there exists a nexus
datacases, so much so that a failure on either between the right to privacy on
account certainly renders a habeas data petition the one hand, and the right to
dismissible, as in this case. life, liberty or security on the
other.
Thus, in order to support a petition for the (Look purposely fo the word
issuance of such writ, Section 6 of the Habeas “NEXUS”)
Data Rule essentially requires that the petition
sufficiently alleges, among others, “[t]he manner
the right to privacy is violated or threatened and
how it affects the right to life, liberty or security
of the aggrieved party.”
20
incompatible with engaging in cyberspace
activities, including those that occur in OSNs.
Disini, Jr. v. Secretary Right to Privacy and Cybercrime Law What is the case all about?
of Justice, G.R. Nos. The right to privacy, or the right to be let alone,
203335, 203299, was institutionalized in the 1987 Constitution Does the cybercrime law
203306, 203359, as a facet of the right protected by the violate an individual's right
203378, 203391, guarantee against unreasonable searches and to privacy?
203407, 203440, seizures. But the Court acknowledged its
203453, 203454, existence as early as 1968 in Morfe v. Mutuc, it
203469, 203501, Related to the right against
ruled that the rightto privacy exists
203509, 203515 & reasonable searches and
independently of its identification with liberty; seizure, the Cybercrime
203518, February 18, it is in itself fully deserving of constitutional Prevention Act authorizes the
2014 protection. DOJ to issue an order to restrict
Relevant to any discussion of or block access to computer
the right to privacy is the concept known as data when it is prima facie
the "Zones of Privacy." The Court explained found to be in violation of the
in "In the Matter of the Petition for Issuance of provisions of the law. Is this
constitutional?
Writ of Habeas Corpus of Sabio v. Senator
Gordon" the relevance of these zones to A: No. Since computer data
the right to privacy: constitutes personal property,
Zones of privacy are recognized and protected they are protected from
in our laws. Within these zones, any form of unreasonable searches and
intrusion is impermissible unless excused by seizures. The government, in
law and in accordance with customary legal effect, seizes and places the
process. The meticulous regard we accord to computer data under its control
these zones arises not only from our conviction and disposition without a
that the rightto privacy is a "constitutional warrant. (Disini v. Sec. of
Justice, 2014)
right" and "the right most valued by civilized
men," but also from our adherence to the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights which
mandates that, "no one shall be subjected to
arbitrary interference with his privacy" and
"everyone has the right to the protection of the
law against such interference or attacks."
21
In assessing the challenge that the State has
impermissibly intruded into these zones of
privacy, a court must determine whether a
person has exhibited a reasonable expectation
of privacy and, if so, whether that expectation
has been violated by unreasonable
government intrusion.
22