PEOPLE v.

MARTI Issue: May an act of a private individual, allegedly in violation of appellants constitutional rights, be invoked against the State? Held: NO. The constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures refers to the immunity by one person from interference by government; it cannot be extended to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government. Villanueva v. Querubin Protection of fundamental liberties against the State: The Bill of Rights governs the relationship between individuals and the state. Its concern is not relation between private individuals What the Bill of Rights does is to declare some forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible to any power holder. Commissioner Bernas Where the contraband articles are indentified without trespass on the part of the arresting officer, there is not a search that is prohibited by the constitution. STONEHILL v. DIOKNO Facts: 42 search warrants issued against petitioners and/or corporations of which they were officers to search the persons above-named and or premises of their offices, warehouses and/or residences, and to seize and take possession of the ff. personal property to wit: Books of accounts, financial records, etc. as violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue Code and the RPC. Issue: (1) Whether the search warrants in question, and the searches and seizures made under the authority thereof are valid or not; (2) If no, are they admissible as evidence. Held: The documents, papers, and things seized under the alleged authority of the warrants in question may be split into 2 major groups: 1. Those found and seized in the offices of the aforementioned corporations; 2. Those found and seized in the residences of petitioners herein. A. Corporations: Only party affected may contest legality of seizure effected by search warrants. Petitioners have no cause of action to assail the legality of the seizures because said corporations have

personalities distinct and separate from those of said officers. The objection to an unlawful search is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties. The right to object to the admission in evidence of the documents, papers and things seized from the offices and premises of the corporations belongs exclusively to the corporations and may not be invoked by the corporate officers in proceedings against them in their individual capacity. B. Those seized in the residences Requisites in Issuing Search Warrants: 1. The warrant shall be issued upon probable cause, to be determined by the judge in the manner set forth in the Contitution; 2. The warrant particularly describe the things to be seized. None of these requirements has been complied with. No specific offense had been alleged in the said applications. It was impossible for the judges to have found the existence of probable cause for it presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the party has performed particular acts violating a given provision of criminal laws. As a matter of fact, there was no reference to any determinate provision of said laws of codes was made. General Warrants are outlawed because they place the sanctity of the domicile and the privacy of communication and correspondence at the mercy of the whims, caprice or passion of the peace officers. Warrants not describing particularly the things to be seized. Search warrants authorizing the seizure of books of accounts and records showing all the business transactions of certain persons, regardless of whether the transactions were legal or illegal, contravene the Bill of Rights and defeat its main objective of eliminating general warrants. Moncado Ruling abandoned Exclusionary Rule Illegally seized documents are not admissible in evidence. The only practical means of enforcing the constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures. SOLIVEN v. MAKASIAR Issues: WON the constitutional rights of Beltran were violated when respondent RTC judge issued a warrant for his arrest without personally examining the

complainant and the witnesses, if any, to determine probable cause. Held: Based on Circular no. 12, to satisfy the existence of probable cause for issuance of a warrant of arrest, the judge may rely on the report of the fiscal, and need not personally examine the complainant and the latters witnesses. What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of the probable cause 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 of arrest; Or (2) require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause. It has not been shown that respondent judge has deviated from the prescribed procedure. SILVA v. PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC OF NEGROS OREINTAL Facts: Search Warrant No. 1 was issued by respondent Judge Ontal, directing the police officers to search the room of Marlon Silva in the residence of Nicomedes Silva for the violation of RA 6425 (Dangerous Drug Act of 1972). In the course of the search, the serving officers also seized money belonging to Antonieta Silva. Antonieta Silva filed a motion for tehr eturn of said amount on the grounds that the search warrant only authorized the seizure of marijuana dried leaves cigarettes and joint. Issue: WON Search Warrant is null and void on the ground that the judge failed to personally examine the complainant and the witnesses by searching questions and answers in violation of Sec. 3, Rule 126 of the Rules of the Court. Held: Requisites for the issuance of a search warrant: SEC. 3. Requisite for issuing search warrant. A search warrant shall not issue but upon probable cause in connection with one specific offense to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the things to be seized. SEC. 4. Examination of complainant; record. The judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine in the form of searching

questions and answers, in writing and under oath the complainant and any witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn statements together with any affidavits submitted. Probable Cause such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and that objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. This probable cause must be shown to be within the personal knowledge of the complainant or the witnesses he may produce and not based on mere hearsay. Prudente v. Dayrit The probable cause required to justify the issuance of a search warrant comprehends such facts and circumstances as will induce a cautious man to rely upon them and act in pursuant thereof Mere generalization will not suffice and does not satisfy the requirements for probable cause upon which a warrant may issue. Nolasco v. Pao Quintero v. NBI: Asking of leading questions to the deponent in an application for search warrant, and conducting of examination in a general manner, would not satisfy the requirements for issuance of a valid search warrant. Judge Ontal failed to comply with the legal requirement that he must examine the applicant and his witness in the form of searching questions and answers in order to determine the existence of probable cause. The joint Deposition of Witness contained suggestive questions answerable by merely placing yes or no in the blanks provided thereon. Such deposition did not only contain leading questions but it was also very broad. Failure to comply with the constitutional and statutory requirement constitutes grave abuse of discretion. Marcelo v. De Guzman

MORANO v. VIVO Facts: Commissioner of Immigration ordered Chan Sau Wah and her son, Fu Yan Fun to leave the country on or before September 10, 1962 (expiry of their visa) with a warning that upon failure to do so, he will issue a warrant for their arrest and will cause the confiscation of their bond. Appellants assail the constitutionality of Sec. 37(a) of the Philippine Immigration Act of 1940.

Issue: WON Sec. 37(a) of the Phil. Immigration Act of 1940 is unconstitutional. Held: Constitutional. SEC. 37. (a) The following aliens shall be arrested upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration or of any other officer designated by him for the purpose and deported upon the warrant of the Commissioner of Immigration after a determination by the Board of Commissioners of the existence of the ground for deportation as charged against the alien: (7) Any alien who remains in the Philippines in violation of any limitation or condition under which he was admitted as nonimmigrant. Petitioners argue that the legal precept just quoted trenches upon the constitutional mandate in Sec. 1(3), Art. III [Bill of Rights] of the Constitution on unreasonable search and seizure, that the Constitution limits to the judges the authority to issue warrants of arrest and that the legislative delegation of such power to the Commissioner of Immigration is thus violative of the Bill of Rights. The constitutional provision against unreasonable search and seizure does not require judicial intervention in the execution of a final order of deportation issued in accordance with law. It contemplates an order of arrest in the exercise of judicial power as a step preliminary or incidental to prosecution of proceedings for a given offense or administrative action, not as a measure indispensable to carry out a valid decision by a competent official, such as a legal order of deportation, issued by the Commissioner of Immigration in pursuance of a valid law. The requirement of probable cause, to be determined by a judge, does not extend to deportation proceedings. HARVEY v. SANTIAGO Facts: On March 4, 1988, deportation proceedings were instituted against petitioners for being undesireable aliens under Sec. 9 of the Revised Administrative Code. On March 7, 1988, Warrants of Arrest were issued against petitioners for violation of Sections 37, 45 and 46 of the Immigration Act, and Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code. Issue: WON the respondents violated Section 2, Article III of the Constitution prohibiting unreasonable search and seizures.

Held: No. The arrest of petitioners was based on probable cause determined after close surveillance for 3 months during which period their activities were monitored. The existence of probable cause justified the arrest and the seizure of the photo negatives, photographs and posters without warrant. Those articles were seized incident to a lawful arrest and, are therefore, admissible as evidence. The ruling in Vivo v. Montessa that the issuance of warrants of arrest by the Commissioner of Immigration, solely for the purposes of investigation and before a final order of deportation is issued, conflicts with paragraph 3, Section 1 of Article III of the Constitution is not invocable herein. Respondent Commissioners Warrant of Arrest issued on March 7, 1988 did not order petitioners to appear and show cause why they should not be deported. They were issued specifically for violation of Sections 37, 45 and 46 of the Immigration Act and Section 69 of the Revised Administrative Code. Before that, deportation proceedings had been commenced against them as undesirable aliens on March 4 1988 and the arrest was a step preliminary to their possible deportation. ALVAREZ v. CFI of Tayabas Facts: Petitioner claims that the search warrant issued by the court is illegal because it has been based upon the affidavit of agent Mariano G, Almeda in whose oath he declared that he had no personal knowledge of the facts which were to serve as basis for the issuance of the warrant but that he had knowledge thereof through mere information secured from a person whom he considered reliable. Issue: WON search warrant is illegal. Held: The search and seizure made are illegal for the following reasons: (1) Because the warrant is based solely upon the affidavit of the petitioner who had no personal knowledge of the facts necessary to determine the existence or non-existence of probable cause, and (2) because the warrant was issued for the sole purpose of seizing evidence which would later be used in the criminal proceedings that might be instituted against the petitioner for violation of the Anti-Usury Law. The warrant had been issued unreasonably, and as it does not appear positively in the affidavit that the articles were in the possession of the petitioner and in the place indicated, neither could the search and seizure be made at night. (Section 101 of General Orders authorizes that the search be made at night when it is positively asserted in the affidavit that the

property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched.) Although it is not mandatory to present affidavits of witnesses to corroborate the applicant or complainant in cases where the latter has personal knowledge of the facts, when the applicants or complainants knowledge of the facts is merely hearsay, it is the duty of the judge to require affidavits of other witnesses so that he may determine whether probable cause exist. A detailed prescription of the person and place to be searched and the articles to be seized is necessary, but where, by the nature of the articles to be seized, their description must be rather general, it is not required that a technical description be given, as this would mean that no warrant could issue. MATA . BAYONA Facts: Petitioner assails the validity of the search warrant issued by the respondent judge because it was issued based merely on the application for search warrant and a joint affidavit of private respondents which were wrongfully it is alleged subscribed and sworn to before the Clerk of the Court of the respondent judge. Also, there was allegedly a failure on the part of the respondent judge to attach the necessary papers pertinent to the issuance of the search warrant to the records of a criminal case wherein petitioner is accused under PD 810, as amended by PD 1306, the information against him alleging that he offered, took and arranged bets on Masiao tickets without authority from the Phil. Jai Alai & Amusement Corporation or from the govt authorities concerned. Issue: WON search warrant issued by the respondent judge is invalid. Held: Invalid. Sec. 4 of Rule 126 provides that the judge must before issuing the warrant personally examine on oath of affirmation the complainant and any witnesses he may produce and take their depositions in writing, and attach them to the record, in addition to any affidavits presented to him. Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus not sufficient. In issuing a search warrant the Judge must strictly comply with the requirements of the Constitution and the statutory provisions. A liberal construction must be given in favor of the individual to prevent stealthy encroachment upon, or gradual depreciation of the rights secured by the Constitution. No presumption of regularity is to be invoked in aid of the process when an officer undertakes to justify it.

While we hold that the search warrant is illegal, the return of the things seized cannot be ordered. In Castro v. Pabalan, it was held that the illegality of the search warrant does not call for the return of the things seized, the possession of which is prohibited.