Consti 2 Final Reviewer Protected)

Full text

(1)m. m. m. ¯

(2) Ã rmal declarati n r enumerati n the undamental rights secured and guaranteed by the C nstituti n t individuals t pr tect them r m arbitrary and desp tic exercise g vernmental p ers estricti ns are directed against the state and d n t g vern relati ns beteen private pers ns..

(3) ¯

(4) ¯

(5) ¯¯ ¯

(6) ¯ ¯ ! "#$# m 3 lice 3 er Mm st essential, insistent and the least limitable p ers, extending t all the great public needs Mm 9nherent and plenary p er in the State, hich enables it t pr hibit all hurtul t the c m rt, saety, and elare s ciety. Mm est up n public necessity and the right state and public t selpr tecti n. Mm P dge in the legislature and may be delegated t the executive Mm equisites valid exercise: laul subject and laul means m gminent D main Mm ight the state t acquire private pr perty r public use up n payment just c mpensati n m "axati n Mm 3 er the state t raise revenues. Such must be r public purp se, equitable and uni rm m m m. m. m. m. Sh uld be mere regulati n n t pr hibiti n a pr essi n r calling that is legitimate. 3resumpti n c nstituti nality 3rincipal Yardstick against exercise p er m Due pr cess clause m gqual pr tecti n clause Pie ± n t just the pr tecti n the right t be alive r security ne¶s limb against physical harm. 9t is right t a g d lie emphasizing n the quality living Piberty ± measure reed m hich may be enj yed in a civilized c mmunity. 9t is the right the citizen t be ree t use his aculties in all laul ays. 3r perty ± include vested rights, d es n t include public ice, license r mere privilege unless such has ev lved int s me rm pr perty pr tected by the c nstituti n. "his is everything ver hich man may have exclusive d mini n r nership.. 6 m. Sandy Crab and the plagiarist.

(7) %&' ! %( 3rimacy Human ights (3hilippine Bl ming ills gmpl yees Org. v. 3B C .). ver 3r perty ights. &)*+*& m eed r n tice and pp rtunity t be heard (n t actual hearing) m Úuarantee pr cedural airness m 3urp se pr cedural due pr cess: (a.) c ntribute t the accuracy and thus minimize err r in deprivati n (b.) gives a sense rati nal participati n in a decisi n than can aect his destiny and thus enhances his dignity as a thinking pers n. m ai lati ns may be cured by m ti n r rec nsiderati n a. equirements )* ,& %# -*)%&%+ &)%#( (Banc Ãil v. 3alanca)CO 1.m urt r tribunal ith judicial p er t hear and determine cases. 2.m -urisdicti n must be laully acquired ver the pers n r pr perty 3.m pp rtunity t be heard 4.m -udgment rendered up n a laul hearing Ô 3r perty al ne is resp nsible r claim in pr ceedings, but the individual is still named as deendant (unlike tice t the deendant in this case is O" abs lutely essential. 3resumpti n regularity. "hat up n n tice t the pr perty, there is n tice t the individual. 3ublicati n is already deemed suicient r pr cedural due pr cess. 3

(8) ere exp sure t publicity d es n t aect impartiality in this case. 3ers n alleging must have direct pr inluence, n t just mere p ssibility. "he public cann t be excluded, especially hen the issue is public interest. b. equirements )* ,& %# # ¯)$%#% %" &)%#( * %.-*)%&%+&)%#( (Ang "ibay v. C9 )HCSSB9 1.m ight t %#( including right t present case and submit evidence 2.m "ribunal must &# %)evidence presented *,, itsel 3.m Decisi n must have s mething t 4.m gvidence must be */ #%+ 5.m Decisi n must be / ) # "%)#& presented r at least c ntained in the rec rd 6.m "ribunal r b dy must act n its n i#),#)# c nsiderati n 7.m B ard r b dy must render its decisi n in a manner here. 1A 2010.

(9) m. 1.m tice and Hearing (imp rtant r quasi judicial b dies because ith ut it the c urts uld lack jurisdicti n) 2.m ate must be reas nable and just (may be implied) 3.m ate must n t be c niscat ry and ppressive.. parties can kn the vari us issues and the # r decisi n. c. 0)%%#&)%#( 1.m gntitled t n tice and hearing be re issuance arrant ± O tice uld deeat the purp se the arrest. Úuilt is n t adjudged during these pr ceedings. 2.m gntitled t n tice and hearing during the pr ceedings. 3.m Bail/pr visi nal liberty n t generally given, but bail may be given under special circumstances: a.m When extraditee is O" a light risk b.m Special Humanitarian c nsiderati ns c.m gxtraditee d es O" p se a danger t the c mmunity. Once bail has been granted, it cann t be rev ked. gxtraudicial 3r ceedings c nsidered in the nature criminal cases because there is arrest detenti n and rced transer t an ther state. "hus due pr cess must be bserved by pr viding bail.. Ú vernment b dies have 2 p ers: 1.m Quasi Pegislative general rules, hich ill aect everyb dy in a certain class. rm n tice, hearing r cr ssexaminati n required. 2.m Quasijudicial applies exclusively t a speciic entity r pers n. Any change must be made ater due n tice and hearing. 3rice Ãixing is c nsidered as an exercise a quasilegislative uncti n (aceda v. g B). e. Academic Cases ,&)*+1*%$# !&)$%&& (AD v. Capul ng) 9A9AC 1. #!$) in riting the nature the accusati n 2. ight t # charges, pti nally ith c unsel 3. ight accused t be %#!$) evidence against them 4. ight t ))*& n evidence 5. gvidence must be &# %)).. "#%" * ,# %# can be decreed n an icial under investigati n ater charges are br ught (even be re the charges are br ught and heard) since the same is n t in the nature penalty, but merely a preliminary step in an administrative investigati n. Suspensi n is n t a punishment r penalty r acts dish nesty and misc nduct in ice, but is nly a preventive measure. "here re it is n t a denial pr cedural due pr cess (Castill C v. Barbers). gducati nal 9nstituti ns enj y academic reed m: 1. Wh may teach 2. What may be taught 3. H it is taught 4. Wh is admitted t study acc rding t students h vi late sch l rules and regulati ns.. % $% 1.m 2.m 3.m this, they may expel. . Dep rtati n 3r ceedings ± eect is 3enal in character, s there must be due pr cess .9WSHD 1.m 3reliminary #" %(%# t determine i they are aliens 2.m # Arrest issued ater inding just cause 3.m Charge must ,&%!'act r missi n 4.m ight t be )and present evidence up n laul hearing ( pr secut r because it is a summary judicial pr ceeding) 5.m Ãinal )&+%# dep rtati n ith basis g. Ãixing ates and egulati n 3r essi ns #)) !(*+%#! . Æ m. (*+%# ! ! %# a pr essi nal license bec mes a pr perty right ater its issuance. (C r na v. H3A3) cann t be taken aay ith ut due pr cess, n tice r hearing.. Sandy Crab and the plagiarist. +%#%" &aHC ust be r a "+%) reas n ust be given the pp rtunity t be ), due pr cess Any evidence derived r m &#! %#/ c unsel is inadmissible. ight t c unsel is a right even in civil and administrative pr ceedings. "he Pab r C de expressly grants the right t c unsel. (Sala v. P C). * When a statute lacks a c mprehensible standard, it vi lates due pr cess r ailure t acc rd pers ns, especially pers ns targeted by it, air n tice c nduct t av id, and it leaves la en rcers ith unbridled discreti n 9 carrying ut pr visi ns. "he lack c mprehensible standards means the statute is vague and am unts t a lack due pr cess because lack ÃA9 O"9Cg and there is D g DgPgÚA"9O. Overbreadth: Ú vernment purp se must n t be achieved ith means hich are unnecessarily br ad and invasive pr tected reed ms.. 1A 2010.

(10) m. *' %, . ins surety b nds, signee (guarant r) agrees t anser r hatever decisi n might be rendered against the principal, hether r n t the surety as impleaded in the c mplaint. tice t the principal is n tice t the surety, thus they have been given an pp rtunity t participate in litigati n. 9 they ch se n t t intervene, it is deemed that they have aived their right t be heard. tice t the principal is als n tice t the surety (Str ngh ld v. CA) %!!#)* $ ) m Ã reiture pr ceedings are n t penal in nature there re uld nly need substantial evidence. "here is als n need r assistance c unsel (Ãeeder v. CA) "he right t be presumed inn cent is given nly t an individual in criminal cases; and n t t c rp rate entities. + * ,&)%#( are a valid exercise p lice p er the State t pr tect the public r m the dissipati n unds and bank runs. 9t d es n t need n tice and hearing as l ng as there is subsequent judicial revie. (CB v. CA) 3r cedure: g g 1.m 0$%#%# by Central Bank 2.m , by netary B ard n the bank c ncerned 3.m 3rima Ãacie "%)#& ab ut the bank¶s bad inancial c nditi n #&++%# ! ,' %( i deemed t be a cust m vi lates due pr cess (American 9nterashi n v. O3) 0, * initially as nly a privilege but eventually ev lved int a rm pr perty right hich sh uld n t be rem ved arbitrarily and ith ut due pr cess. 9nput taxes O" pr perties n r pr perty rights but mere statut ry privilege. */ #%"*& m 9nterest public requires such intererence and the means are reas nably necessary r the acc mplishment the purp se and n t unduly ppressive m Piberty the citizen may be restrained in the interest public health, public rder and saety, r anything else ithin the sc pe p lice p er. m 9t is the duty the legislature t : 9 1.m determine hat the i# the public require 2.m Determine hat $ * are necessary r the pr tecti n such interests. "he determinati n, the legislature n hat is a pr per exercise p lice p er is subject t the supervisi n the c urts ( S v. " ribi ). m. Sandy Crab and the plagiarist. #)) !+%& 1.m Paul 3urp se r the general elare the c mmunity. 2.m Paul eth d reas nable, n n ppressive and n narbitrary means and meth ds empl yed in c nnecti n t the acc mplishment the purp se. 3 lice p er cann t interere ith private pr perty r purely aesthetic purp ses. But here the act is reas nably ithin a pr per c nsiderati n and care r the public health, saety r c m rt, it sh uld n t be disturbed by the c urts. (Churchill v. aerty) "he State may n t under the guise 3 lice 3 er, permanently divest ners the beneicial use their pr perty and practically c niscate them s lely t preserve r assure the aesthetic appearance the c mmunity. (3e ple v. Ãajard ) An rdinance may be c nsidered invalid i: P3PS 1.m 9t ©

(11) +%$% the may r¶s discreti n 2.m 9t #,*, t be attained by requiring a permit 3.m enumerates n c nditi n r its grant r reusal 4.m &2 #)) , c nerring up n the may r arbitrary and unrestricted p er. 3*#%&%,++%&# ! c uld be classiied int : OO (1) "h se imp sed r (*+%#(&&*,%# r regular enterprises, (2) "he regulati n r restricti n ##.* !*+&&*,%# r enterprises, (3) Ã r "#* purp ses nly. Ordinance is a valid exercise p lice p er t minimize certain practices hurtul t public m rals. "he alarming increase in the rate pr stituti n, adultery and rnicati n in anila traceable in great part t the existence m tels. "axati n may be made t implement a p lice p er and the am unt, bject, and instance taxati n is dependent up n the l cal legislative b dy. P 0 p lice p er t regulate behavi r. C ngress can legislate m rality thr ugh sin taxes. (grmitaalate v. City ay r anila) "he extincti n rtgage and ther liens ned by legitimate credit rs AÚ 9 c nstitutes a taking ith ut due pr cess. "he m rtgages and l ans are purely private and have n t sh n t be aected ith private interest; there re, there as n cause t deprive the private individuals vested pr perty rights. Outright c niscati n 3r perty ith ut O"9Cg and HgA 9Ú is invalid. 9 there is a 2%#(, there must be ust C mpensati n. (DC v. 3hil aeterans Bank). 1A 2010.

(12) m. Pegislature, may n t, under the guise pr tecting public interest, arbitrarily interere ith private businesses, hich is a pr perty right the ner. "heaters, cinemas and ther exhibiti ns cann t be c nsidered 3

(13) (Balacuit v. CÃ9). (*# ± a statute r act is vague hen it lacks c mprehensible standards that men c mm n intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and dier as t its applicati n. 9t vi lates due pr cess r ailure t acc rd t pers n air n tice the c nduct t av id and it leaves la en rcers unbridled discreti n in carrying ut its pr visi ns and bec mes an arbitrary lexing g vernment muscles. %).!."(*# )&%# ± a statute hich either rbids r requires the d ing an act in terms s vague that men c mm n intelligence must necessarily guess its meaning and dier as t its applicati n "/) )&%# ± a g vernmental purp se may n t be achieved by means hich seep unnecessarily br adly and thereby invade the area pr tected reed m !"+%))%##&C 3"Ú (a) d es n t &#"# the c nstituti n r statute (b) must *#!% r ppressive (c) must ,%+#))% &%$%#' (d) must pr hibit but may regulate ) (e) must be (#+ and c nsistent ith public p licy () must *# #/+ An rdinance must n t c ntravene the C nstituti n r any Statute (agtajas v. 3ryce) Due pr cess d es n t alays entail judicial pr ceedings, especially hen it c mes t taxati n.. ! #/+# ! #4 0,&%# ! %"&' (Ople v. " rres) 1.m Whether by his c nduct, the individual has exhibited an expectati n privacy. 2.m Whether s ciety deems this expectati n reas nable. A statute must satisact rily sh the presence c mpelling state interest and that the la, rule, regulati n is narr ly dran t preclude abuses. 1*%$# ! */+%&%#. "he absence publicati n is atal as held in "anada v. "uvera. gven i a © is internal in nature, i its eects reach ut t pe ple ther than its empl yees, then it must be published. (3ilipinas Ka v. CA) All statutes, including th se l cal applicati n, and private las must be published as a c nditi n r their eectivity. Als c vered are 3D¶s, gO¶s and administrative rules and regulati ns in s ar as they implement existing la pursuant t a valid delegati n. Whether r n t the circular addresses a small gr up r n t, the act that it is an administrative circular hich en rces las, makes publicati n imperative. (3H9PSA v. Secretary Pab r) */+%& !!%& is n t a pr perty right but a statut ry right. C ngress may pr vide r requirements and limits t public ice. yalties: taking pr perty ith ut just c mpensati n. *#%&# . "he p ssessi n irearms, as ell as a gun license permitting the carrying irearms, is nly a privilege and O" a right. "he regulati n irearms all ithin the p lice p er the State, as it regulates its use and pr tecti n r the public saety and elare the general s ciety. (Chavez v. mul ) # %# . are n t c nsidered a gratuity. "hey are delayed c mpensati n hich vests the recipient ith a legitimate pr perty interest. (ÚS9S v. ntesclar s). 9n ++(+* !,', the acti n the p ssess r and n t the ner is binding. 9t serves t prevent urther illegal use the pr perty. "he state is n t required t c mpensate the ner r pr perty it has already laully acquired under the exercise g vernmental auth rity ther than the p er eminent d main. (Bennis v. ichigan). %$# #!% . etirement beneits military pers nnel are gratuit us in character, as such they nly gave uture beneits. 9t is nly hen the empl yee retires and bec mes eligible, that he acquires a vested right t said beneits. (3arren v. COA). ! %#. is a legitimate subject 3 lice 3 er. S l ng as pr essi nals and ther rkers meet reas nably regulat ry standards, n such deprivati n pr perty exists. ( 3r m ti n and anagement v. CA) vi lati n pr perty rights, the state can regulate entry int business as l ng as it is reas nable.. 3 lice 3 er, in the interest Úeneral Welare and 3ublic Health, AY impair c ntracts. (Beltran v. Sec. Health) $# . are like ther c ntracts, subject t the verriding demands, needs and interests the greater number as the State may determine in the exercise its p lice p er. ( BÃHA9 v. City ay r 3aranaque). m. Sandy Crab and the plagiarist. 1A 2010.

(14) m. 0m 3 lice p er, need n t pr ve exact scientiic c nclusiveness r research, as l ng as the exercise hich remains reas nable and n t unduly ppressive. (iras l v. D3WH) &*%' ! #*. While the right rkers t security tenure is guaranteed by the C nstituti n, its exercise may be reas nably regulated pursuant t the p lice p er the State t saeguard health, m rals, peace, educati n, rder, saety, and the general elare the pe ple. 1*+&%#! m Úuarantees legal equality all be re the la m gqual pr tecti n clause can als be vi lated n t by denial equality but by creating a system that can ster inequality (3e ple v. aera) m "he guaranty gqual 3r tecti n is n t vi lated by a legislati n based n reas nable classiicati n.. &+ %!%&%# / #/+(3e ple v. Cayat)SÚPg 1.m 9t must rest n */ #%+ distincti ns 2.m 9t must be ($# t the purp se the la 3.m 9t must +%$%) t existing c nditi ns nly 4.m 9t must apply 1*++' t all members the same class it d es n t demand abs lute equality am ng residents, it merely requires that all pers ns similarly situated shall be treated alike, under like circumstances; b th as t privileges c nerred and liabilities en rced. ("iu v. CA) ¯+%# "he dierence in status beteen citizens and aliens c nstitute a basis r reas nable classiicati n in the exercise p lice p er. SC held that the disputed la as enacted t remedy an actual threat and danger t nat¶l ec n my p sed by alien d minance and c ntr l the retail trade, and uld ree citizens r m such d minance and c ntr l. (9ch ng v. Hernandez) "he 350.00 ee is unreas nable because it ails t c nsider valid substantial dierences in situati n am ng individual aliens h are required t pay it. "he same am unt is c llected r m every alien, hether he is a casual r permanent empl yee, parttime r ulltime, an empl yee r an executive. (aillegas v. Hui Chi ng 3a H ) "he term ³n nresident alien´ and its bverse ³resident alien,´ must be given their technical c nn tati n under ur la n immigrati n. "here lies substantial dierences beteen the t . (Úeneral illing C rp. v. " rres). r m. Sandy Crab and the plagiarist. "he purp se the la is t all the emergence y unger bl g vernments, s the la as declared valid. (Dumla v. COgPgC). d in l cal. #). is a valid classiicati n, the physical and psych l gical dierences make the distincti n reas nably related t the valid purp se. "he pr hibiti n men bartenders as attributed t the danger present in their rkplace, ith the bject pr tecting the m rals men. (Ú esart v. Cleary) 0%#( )%##&. "ax sh uld n t be passed r speciic c mpanies/entities nly, r it ill n t be applicable t uture c nditi ns, and ill serve t exclude any subsequently established sugar central, the same class as plainti, r m the c verage the tax. (Orm c Sugar C . v. "reasurer Orm c) 9t is inherent in the p er t tax that a state be ree t select the subjects taxati n, and it has been repeatedly held that 'inequalities hich result r m a singling ut ne particular class r taxati n, r exempti n inringe n c nstituti nal limitati n. (Sis n r. v. Ancheta) Special grant tax exempti n in av r class legislati n. (Chavez v. 3CÚÚ). the arc z heirs ill c nstitute. $/+%#(.ust h 3D 1869 in legalizing gambling c nducted by 3AÚCO is vi lative equal pr tecti n is n t clearly explained. "he mere act that s me gambling activities like c ckighting (3D 449) h rseracing ( A 306, amended by A 983), seepstakes, l ttery and races ( A 1169 amended by B3 42) are legalized under certain c nditi ns, hile thers are pr hibited, d es n t render these las, speciically 3D 1869, unc nstituti nal. "he g3C d es n t mean that all things called by the same name sh uld be treated the same ay. (Basc v. 3AÚCO ) &% % . Dismissal a case against ne deendant must apply t thers i n reas nable distincti ns exist. ( epublic v. Sandiganbayan)

(15) $+ .9nequalities hich result r m the singling ut ne particular class r tax exempti n inringe n c nstituti nal limitati n. "here is a substantial distincti n beteen the h meless p r and the h meless less p r because the 2nd gr up can a rd t rent h uses in the meantime. (" lentin v. Sec. Ãinance) 3 lice p er inv lves the duty t pr vide r the real needs the pe ple. "he Burial Assistance 3r gram is a relie pauperism. 3aupers may be reas nably classiied. Dierent gr ups may receive varying treatment. Statutes have been passed giving rights and beneits t the disabled and the less rtunate. (Binay v. D ming ). 1A 2010.

(16) m. * ,# %#!+%& !!%& .33 Oicers are treated dierently r m ther pers ns charged criminally r administratively ins ar as preventive suspensi n is c ncerned. 3 licemen carry eap ns and the badge la hich can be used t harass r intimidate itnesses against them, and there re needs t be suspended in rder t pr tect itnesses against him. (Himagan v. 3e ple). #&% .a ranchise is n t in the strict sense a simple c ntract but rather it is m re imp rtantly, a mere privilege especially in matters hich are ithin the g vernment's p er t regulate and even pr hibit thr ugh the exercise the p lice p er. "hus, a gambling ranchise is alays subject t the exercise p lice p er r the public elare. (Pim v. 3acquing) "here is substantial distincti n beteen landbased and seabased Ãilipin verseas rkers in terms , am ng ther things, rk envir nment, saety, dangers and risks t lie and limb, and accessibility t s cial, civic, and spiritual activities. (C nerence aritime anning Agencies v. 3OgA) 9t is gr ssly unair t exempt ne similarly situated litigant r m pr secuti n ith ut all ing the same exempti n t the thers. "he equal pr tecti n guarantee perates against uneven applicati n legal n rms s that all pers ns under similar circumstances uld be acc rded the same treatment. ( egala v. Sandiganbayan) "he per rmance legitimate and even essential duties by public icers has never been an excuse t ree a pers n validly in pris n. Ãuncti ns and duties the ice are n t substantial distincti ns hich lit the accused r m the class pris ners interrupted in their reed m and restricted in liberty m vement. (3e ple v. al sj s) "here are substantial dierences beteen big invest rs h are lured t establish their industries in the ³secured areas´ c mpared t business perat rs utside the area. "he irst can give ec n mic impact that is nati nal in sc pe, the ther, merely l cal ("iu v. CA) +&$$*#%&%# ."a and radi are m re pervasive and persuasive; print media d es n t really reach the hardt reach places in the 3hilippines hile access t "a and radi c ntent is practically simultane us ("gPgBA3 v. COgPgC) "he payment the civil liability is n t made a c nditi n

(17) t pr bati n. 3etiti ner¶s applicati n r pr bati n had already been granted. Satisacti n his civil liability as n t made a requirement be re he c uld avail pr bati n, but as a c nditi n r his c ntinued enj yment the. m. Sandy Crab and the plagiarist. same. 3r bati n is n t an abs lute right. 9t is a mere privilege h se grant rests up n the discreti n the trial c urt. (S rian v. CA) +&%# . incumbents running r the same p siti n are n t c nsidered resigned because the intenti n the la is t all them t c ntinue serving their c nstituents and av id a disrupti n in the delivery essential services. "h se running r dierent p siti ns are c nsidered resigned because they are c nsidered t have aband ned their present p siti n by their act running r ther p sts. (Aguinald v. COgPgC) "he purp se the singling ut is t ensure the impartiality the electi n icers by preventing them r m devel ping amiliarity ith the pe ple in the place assigned t them. "he purp se the la is t break an imp rtant link in the chain c rrupti n. With ut the c mplicity such icials, largescale v ter registrati n an malies can hardly be carried ut. (De Úuzman v. COgPgC) "here are substantial distincti ns beteen glective and App intive Oicials: 1: elective icials ccupy ice by the maj rity¶s mandate ± they can nly be rem ved under stringent circumstances; app intive icials h ld ice by virtue designati n by an app inting auth rity 2: App intive icials are n t all ed t engage in partisan p litical activity, hile elective icials bvi usly may (Ãarinas v. gxecutive Secretary) 1*+'!1*+2.pers ns h rk r equal qualiicati ns, skill, e rt and resp nsibility, under similar c nditi ns, sh uld be paid equally. Salaries sh uld n t be used as an enticement r reignhires, t the prejudice l calhires. (9S v. Quisumbing) #+'."he death penalty la applies t all pers ns and all classes pers ns. particular gr up r classes pers ns are identiied by the la against h m the death penalty shall be exclusively imp sed. (3e ple v. ercad ) 5

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21) ¯ ¯ . ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯

(22) ¯ 6

(23) ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯

(24) ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯

(25) ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯ ¯

(26) ¯ 7 ¯ ¯ 3 ¯

(27) - ¯ 7¯3¯ ¯

(28) ¯. 3¯

(29) 3¯ ¯

(30)

(31) 3¯ ¯ ¯ ¯

(32) ¯ ¯

(33) ¯

(34)

(35) 6. 1A 2010.

(36) m. . 3 3 ¯

(37) 0&,%#9 search is reas nable . %"+%) %*"+%) %* #* # # #8/' ,*, %" equirements: 1) 9ncidental t #)%"%)*+9 1) Subp ena 1) 9ssued up n laul arrest duces tecum pr bable cause (Sec 12, ule 1) SO3 (3e ple 2) Administrative 2) 3ers nally 126 ules vs. arti) 9nspecti n examined by the C urt) 2) Security Check judge 2) 3lain vie (3e ple vs 3) ving vehicle B ngcaraan) 3) gxamined 4) C nsented under ath and arrantless airmati n search 4) 3articularly 5) Cust ms describing the searches place t be 6) St p and Ãrisk searched and the 7) gxigent and pers ns r things t be seized gmergency (Sec. 2 Art. 999, circumstances y v. B9 ) 8) suspici nless 5) arrant must drug tests n t be r m re than ne ense ( evised OC) ¯ )$!$ &#)¯ *, (a) " pr tect the privacy and sanctity his pers n, pr perty and h use (b) " guarantee against unlaul arrest and ther rms restraint. Secti n 2 is pr tecti n against unlaul searches by

(38) and d es n t pr tect citizens r m unlaul searches and seizures by. m. Sandy Crab and the plagiarist. private individuals. (3e ple v. arti) **remedy may be und in the Civil C de and in the 3C. & ± an examinati n a man¶s h use r ther buildings r premises, r his pers n r his vehicle ith a vie t the disc very c ntraband, illicit and st len pr perty r s me evidence guilt t be used in pr secuti n a criminal acti n r s me crime r ense charged. #% &: &;< A ³ utine Checkp int´ d es n t intrude n a m t rists right t ³ree passage ith ut interrupti n,´ but it inv lves nly a brie detenti n travelers during hich the vehicle¶s ccupants are required t anser a brie questi n r t . As l ng as the vehicle is neither searched, n r its ccupants subjected t a b dy search, and the inspecti n the vehicle is limited t a visual search, r utine checks cann t be regarded as vi lative an individuals¶ right against unreas nable search. (aalm nte v. Úen. De ailla) #)$*( %#(."he perative c ncepts in the mandat ry drug testing are "rand mness" and "suspici nless." 9n the case pers ns charged ith a crime be re the pr secut r's ice, a mandat ry drug testing can never be rand m r suspici nless. When pers ns suspected c mmitting a crime are charged, they are singled ut and are impleaded against their ill. "he pers ns thus charged, by the bare act being haled be re the pr secut r's ice and peaceably submitting themselves t drug testing, i that be the case, d n t necessarily c nsent t the pr cedure, let al ne aive their right t privacy. " imp se mandat ry drug testing n the accused is a blatant attempt t harness a medical test as a t l r criminal pr secuti n, c ntrary t the stated bjectives A 9165. Drug testing in this case uld vi late a pers ns' right t privacy guaranteed under Sec. 2, Art. 999 the C nstituti n. W rse still, the accused pers ns are veritably rced t incriminate themselves. (SS v. DDB) %=*± as l ng as the pr perty is in c ntr l the pers n arrested, even i he d es n t p ssess nership, such may be seized (Burg s v. Chie Sta) St pping a pers n, even th ugh an arrest is n t c mmenced, is a ³seizure´ ("erry v. Ohi ) ¯ ± t deprive a pers n his liberty by legal auth rity. 9t is he taking a pers n int cust dy in rder that he may be b und t anser r the c mmissi n an ense. 9n arrest cases there must be:. 1A 2010.

(39) m. 1.m pr bable cause that a crime has been c mmitted 2.m and that the pers n t be arrested c mmitted it, *Which c urse can exist ith ut any sh ing that evidence the crime ill be und at premises under that pers n's c ntr l. (Webb v. De Pe n) & # ± an rder in riting issued in the name the epublic signed by a judged and directed t a peace icer c mmanding him t search r pers nal pr perty described therein and bring it be re the c urt. 9n search cases, t c nclusi ns must be supp rted by substantial evidence: 1.m that the items s ught are in act seizable by virtue being c nnected ith criminal activity, and 2.m that the items ill be und in the place t be searched. 9t is n t als necessary that a particular pers n be implicated. (Webb v. De Pe n) A search arrant may be issued r the search and seizure : 1.m pr perty subject the ense 2.m pr perty st len r embezzled and pr ceeds/ruits the ense 3.m pr perty used r intended t be used as the mans c mmitting an ense Secti n 2, ule 126 the ules C urt, d es n t require that the pr perty t be seized sh uld be ned by the pers n against h m the search arrant is directed. 9t may r may n t be ned by him. 9n act, under subsecti n [b] the ab vequ ted Secti n 2, ne the pr perties that may be seized is st len pr perty. ecessarily, st len pr perty must be ned by ne ther than the pers n in h se p ssessi n it may be at the time the search and seizure. Onership, there re, is n c nsequence, and it is suicient that the pers n against h m the arrant is directed has c ntr l r p ssessi n the pr perty s ught t be seized. (Burg s Sr. v. Chie Sta) 3artially 9nvalid Warrant pr visi n la exists hich requires that a arrant, partially deective in speciying s me items s ught t be seized yet particular ith respect t the ther items, sh uld be nulliied as a h le. (icr s t v. axic rp) 9n cases here a dierent name is inserted as the ner a pr perty t be searched, it is nly a harmless deect, as l ng as it is nly a search the premises and n t pers ns. When a judge issues alm st exactly the same arrant as the ld ne, herein nly the municipality r number the address is changed, the ld arrant is deemed rev ked by the ne arrant, and it is presumed that the ne arrant is issued in rder t c rrect s me deect in the ld arrant.. ü m. Sandy Crab and the plagiarist. As t Assailing the 9llegality a Seizure: 9t is ell settled that the legality a seizure can be c ntested by the party h se rights have been impaired thereby, and that the bjecti n t an unlaul search and seizure is and cann t be availed by third parties. (St nehill v. Di kn ) "he right t bject t the admissi n said papers in evidence bel ngs

(40) t the c rp rati ns, t h m the seized eects bel ng, and may n t be inv ked by the c rp rate icers in pr ceedings against them in their individual capacity. (St nehill v. Di kn ) As t 9llegally Obtained gvidence: As t aAP9D legal items that have been illegally seized, it sh uld be returned t the ners. But hen illegal items such as unlicensed irearms r drugs are illegally btained, it is kept in

(41) r in cust dy la. "hey are inadmissible as evidence in c urt, but since they are pr hibited items under la, the pers n h as in cust dy such as n t the legal ner, and the items must be c niscated by la. #!¯ ± a ritten rder made n behal the state and is based up n a c mplaint issued pursuant t a statute r rule and hich c mmand la en rcement t arrest a pers n and bring him be re a c urt. ¯

(42) ¯ ¯ "he applicant must sh : 1.)m "hat the items s ught are in act seizable by virtue being c nnected ith criminal activity; and 2.)m "hat the items ill be und in the place t be searched. "he judge must c nduct a pers nal, searching examinati n the applicant and his itnesses.. 3rescripti n: 10 days . ¯ ¯ ¯ "he applicant must sh ´ 1.)m 3r bable cause that an ense has been c mmitted. 2.)m "hat the pers n t be arrested c mmitted it.. "he judge need n t c nduct a pers nal examinati n the applicant and itnesses. He may rely n the aidavits the itnesses and the rec mmendati n the pr secut r. 3rescripti n: until served.. 9 r s me reas n, a search as n t c mpleted n the irst day it as undertaken, such as the v luptu usness the material t be seized, the search n the 2nd day is deemed a c ntinuati n the riginal search. "he. 1A 2010.

(43) m. search may be per rmed any day ithin the 10day prescriptive peri d. (ustang Pumber) 9t is nly the udge h may issue arrants search and arrest. ay rs may n t exercise this p er, n r may it be d ne by a mere pr secuting b dy. "he ne excepti n t this rule is the dep rtati n illegal and undesirable aliens, hich arrest may be issued r rdered by the 3resident r the C mmissi n 9mmigrati n. (Salazar v. Achac s ) C mmissi ner 9mmigrati n cann t issue arrants arrest in aid merely his investigat ry p er. H ever, he may rder the arrest an alien in rder t carry ut a dep rtati n rder that has already bec me inal. (B ard C mmissi ners v. Dela sa) An issuing magistrate must meet 2 requirements: he must be neutral and detached and must be capable determining hether pr bable cause exists. 1*% % !+%)# A search arrant must c n rm strictly t the requirements the reg ing c nstituti nal and statut ry pr visi ns. "hese requirements are: (1) the arrant must be issued up n pr bable cause; (2) the pr bable cause must be determined by the judge himsel and n t by the applicant r any ther pers n; (3) in the determinati n pr bable cause, the judge must examine, under ath r airmati n, the c mplainant and such itnesses as the latter may pr duce; and (4) the arrant issued must particularly describe the place t be searched and pers ns r things t be seized. ( y v. B9 ) 9//+* ± such reas ns, supp rted by acts and circumstances, as ill arrant a cauti us man in the belie that his acti n and the means taken in pr secuting it, are legally just and pr per. Dg"g 9gD BY "Hg ÃAC"S OÃ gACH CASg. 9t must be pr bable cause s mething speciic (St nehill vs. Dl kn ) 9t must be deined 9n relati n t the acti n hich 9t justiies ere c nclusi ns la d n t establish pr bable cause (C rr vs. Pising) (Burg s vs. Chie Sta) m 3r bable cause r an arrest ± acts and circumstances hich uld lead a reas nably discreet and prudent man t believe that an ense has been c mmitted by the pers n s ught t be arrested. m 3r bable cause r a search ± acts and circumstances hich uld lead a reas nably discreet and prudent man t believe that an ense has been c mmitted and that the bjects s ught in. m. Sandy Crab and the plagiarist. c nnecti n ith the ense are in the place s ught t be searched. 9t als demands that ³n less than pers nal kn ledge by the c mplainant r his itnesses the acts up n the issuance a search arrant may be justiied. (20th Century Ã x ilm C rp. v. CA, Burg s Sr. v. Chie Sta, C rr v. Pising; riginally r m Henry v. S 1959) 3r bable Cause need n t be based n clear and c nvincing evidence guilt, neither n evidence establishing guilt bey nd reas nable d ubt, and deinitely n t n evidence establishing abs lute certainty guilt. Be re issuing arrants arrest, judges merely determine

(44) guilt an accused. 9n d ing s , judges d n t c nduct a hearing t determine the existence pr bable cause. "hey just the initial determinati n the pr secut r inding a pr bable cause t see i it is supp rted by

(45) . [O"g: need n t p int t a speciic ense] (Webb v. De Pe n) "he testim nies the t itnesses, c upled ith the bject and d cumentary evidence they presented, are suicient t establish the existence pr bable cause. "he determinati n pr bable cause d es n t call r the applicati n rules and standards pr that a judgment c nvicti n requires ater trial n the merits. (icr s t v. axic rp) ³3r bable cause´ is c ncerned ith pr bability, n t abs lute r even m ral certainty. "he pr secuti n need n t present at this stage pr bey nd reas nable d ubt. "he standards judgment are that reas nably prudent man, n t the exacting calibrati ns a judge ater a ullbl n trial. (icr s t v. axic rp) Ã r purp ses issuing a arrant, nly a judge can determine pr bable cause. Ã r purp ses iling an in rmati n, the pr secuti n determines pr bable cause. Determinati n pr bable cause during a preliminary investigati n is an executive uncti n. (3e ple v. CA) Suiciency Aidavit When the Aidavit the applicant the c mplaint c ntains suicient acts ithin his pers nal and direct kn ledge, it is suicient i the judge is satisied that there exist pr bable cause; hen the applicant's kn ledge the acts is mere hearsay, the aidavit ne r m re itnesses having a pers nal kn ledge the act is necessary. (Alvarez v. CÃ9) 3r secut r¶s Certiicati n "he judge may rely up n the iscal's certiicati n the existence pr bable cause and, n the basis there , issue a arrant arrest. But such. 1A 2010.

(46) m. certiicati n d es n t bind the judge. "he issuance a arrant is n t a mere ministerial uncti n; it calls r the exercise judicial discreti n n the part the issuing magistrate. Secti n 6, ule 112 the ules C urt pr vide that: 9 n the ace the in rmati n the judge inds n pr bable cause, he may disregard the iscals certiicati n and require the submissi n the aidavits itnesses t aid him in arriving at a c nclusi n as t the existence a pr bable cause. (3lacer v. aillanueva) By itsel the pr secut r¶s certiicati n pr bable cause is ineectual. 9t is the rep rts, aidavits and ther supp rting d cuments behind the pr secut r¶s certiicati n hich are material t assisting the judge in making his determinati n. "he extent the udge's pers nal examinati n the rep rt and its annexes depends n the circumstances each case. "he pers nal determinati n is vested in the udge by the C nstituti n. 9t can be as brie r as detailed as the circumstances each case require(Pim Sr. v. Ãelix) udges must O" rely s lely n the rep rt the pr secut r they must evaluate the rep rt and the supp rting d cuments hich may c nsist aidavits, transcripts, and all ther supp rting d cuments behind the pr secut r¶s certiicati n ( berts v. CA) 59 #+0$%#%#!-*)( nder existing las, arrants arrest may be issued: (1) by the etr p litan "rial C urts (e"Cs) except th se in the ati nal Capital egi n, unicipal "rial C urts ("Cs), and unicipal Circuit "rial C urts (C"Cs) in cases alling ithin their exclusive riginal jurisdicti n; in cases c vered by the rule n summary pr cedure here the accused ails t appear hen required; and in cases iled ith them hich are c gnizable by the egi nal "rial C urts ( "Cs); # &# % * nly i the judge is satisied ater an examinati n in riting and under ath the c mplainant and the itnesses, in the rm searching questi ns and ansers, that a pr bable cause exists and that there is a necessity placing the resp ndent under immediate cust dy in rder n t t rustrate the ends justice. 3r bable cause is 3g SOAPPY Dg"g 9gD by the judge ater examinati n under ath r airmati n the c mplainant/applicant and all itnesses h have pers nal kn ledge the ense under ath and in riting. (Allad v. Di kn ) (2) by the etr p litan "rial C urts in the ati nal Capital egi n (e"Cs. 6 m. Sandy Crab and the plagiarist. C ) and the "Cs in cases iled ith them ater appr priate preliminary investigati ns c nducted by icers auth rized t d s ther than judges e"Cs, "Cs and C"Cs. . nder these c urts, it has been held that: "he judge is # 1*%) , #++' 0$%# &$,+%## #) % %# Ã ll ing Seaestablished d ctrine and pr cedure, he shall 1.m 3ers nally evaluate the rep rt and the supp rting d cuments submitted by the iscal regarding the existence pr bable cause and, n the basis there , issue a arrant arrest; r 2.m 9 n the basis there he inds n pr bable cause, he may a.m disregard the iscal's rep rt and require the submissi n supp rting aidavits itnesses t aid him in arriving at a c nclusi n as t the existence pr bable cause, O b.m pers nally examine the applicant and itnesses t determine pr bable cause. (S liven v. akasiar, berts v. CA) "he judge is n t required t pers nally examine the c mplainant and his itnesses and n the basis there issue a arrant arrest. He may als rely n the iscal¶s rep rt r i n the basis there he inds n pr bable cause he may disregard the iscal¶s rep rt and require the submissi n supp rting aidavits itnesses t aid him in arriving at a c nclusi n as t the existence pr bable cause. (S liven v. akasiar) But it may n t be delegated t a clerk (Bache v. uiz) What is required is and n t (S liven v. udge akasiar) **Bernas rec mmends c mparing the d ctrine r m S liven ith the d ctrine r m Bache and C . v. uiz What the C nstituti n undersc res is the exclusive and pers nal resp nsibility the issuing judge t satisy himsel the existence pr bable cause. (S liven v. udge akasiar) "he judge must examine the c mplainant and his itnesses under ath r airmati n. "his has been interpreted as requiring a pers nal and n t merely delegated examinati n by the judge r by the pr per icer, because the purp se the examinati n is t c nvince the judge r icer himsel and n t any ther individual. (Bache and C . v. uiz; Alvarez v. C urt) A judge cann t rely n the certiicati n r rec mmendati n a pr secut r that pr bable cause exists r the purp se issuing a arrant. By itsel, the 3r secut r¶s certiicati n pr bable cause is ineectual. "he judge. 1A 2010.

(47) m. must l k at the rep rt, the aidavits, the transcripts sten graphic n tes (i any) and all ther supp rting d cuments behind the 3r secut r¶s certiicati n. (Pim v. Ãelix) "est Suiciency ± hether it had been dran in such a manner that perjury c uld be charged i such is untrue. gxaminati n c mplainant must be in the rm searching questi ns and ansers in rder t determine the existence pr bable cause. (Silva v. "C egr s) "he reading the sten graphic n tes t resp ndent udge did n t c nstitute suicient c mpliance ith the c nstituti nal mandate pers nal examinati n r by that manner resp ndent udge did n t have the pp rtunity t bserve the demean r the c mplainant and his itness. "hese ere imp rtant in arriving at a s und inerence n the questi n /n there as pr bable cause. (Bache & C . 9nc v. uiz) 3ers nal gxaminati n gvidence: "he presentati n the master tapes the c pyrighted ilms r m hich the pirated ilms ere allegedly c pied, as necessary r the validity search arrants against th se h have in their p ssessi n the pirated ilms. "his linkage the c pyrighted ilms t the pirated ilms must be established t satisy the requirements pr bable cause. ere allegati ns as t the existence the c pyrighted ilms cann t serve as basis r the issuance a search arrant. (20th Century Ã x Ãilm v. CA) 90$%#)*#) #)¯!!%$%# Searching Questi ns: Warrant issued ill be declared i the judge d es n t ask SgA CH9Ú Q gS"9OS, and merely asks curs ry questi ns that mirr r the applicati n iled by the c mplainant r itness, such as: Mm Questi ns that are simple ³yes´ r ³n ´ questi ns pertaining t basic matters like identity and things t be seized, already c ntained in the applicati n r search arrant iled. Mm Questi ns that are r utinary and very br ad. (Silva v. 3residing udge "C egr s Occidental) Oath an utard pledge, given by pers n taking it, that his attestati n r pr mise is made under immediate sense resp nsibility t Ú d. (Alvarez vs. CÃ9) Airmati n a s lemn and rmal declarati n that an aidavit is true, this being substituted r an ath in certain cases. Here, there is n inv cati n Ú d r a supreme being.. 66 m. Sandy Crab and the plagiarist. A search arrant must n t nly be based n pr bable cause but als must be based n an applicati n supp rted by ath the applicant and the itnesses he may pr duce. 9ts purp se is t c nvince the c mmitting magistrate the existence pr bable cause. "he ailure the itness t menti n particular individuals d es n t necessarily pr ve that he had n pers nal kn ledge speciic illegal transacti ns the Organizati n, r the itness might be acquainted ith speciic transacti ns, even i the names the individuals c ncerned ere unkn n t him. (Central Bank v. re) "he examining judge has t take dep siti ns in riting the c mplainant and the itnesses he may pr duce and t attach them t the rec rd. Such ritten dep siti n is necessary in rder that the judge may be able t pr perly determine the existence r n nexistence pr bable cause, and t h ld liable r perjury the pers n giving it i it ill be und later that his declarati ns are alse. (3e ple v. amaril) -9%&*+%'! &%,%# .A search arrant may be said t particularly describe the things t be seized hen the descripti n therein is as speciic as the circumstances ill rdinarily all and by hich the arrant icer may be guided in making the search and seizure. (Bache & C . v. uiz) Secti n 1, paragraphs 3, Article 999 the C nstituti n, and secti n 97 Úeneral Orders, . 58 pr vide that the !!%)"% t be presented, hich shall serve as the basis r determining hether pr bable cause exist and hether the arrant sh uld be issued, must c ntain a particular descripti n the place t be searched and the pers n r thing t be seized. "hese pr visi ns are mandat ry and must be strictly c mplied. (Alvarez v. CÃ9) 9t must O" be t general. (St nehill v. Di kn ) "he purp se and intent this requirement is t limit the things t be seized t nly th se particularly described in the search arrant ± t leave the icers the la ith n discreti n regarding hat articles they sh uld seize, t the end that unreas nable searches and seizures, r abuses, may n t be c mmitted. (C rr v. Pising) 3urp se r this requirement is t prevent abuse by the icer en rcing the arrant by leaving him ith n discreti n as t h r hat t search r seize. (Bernas). 1A 2010.

(48) m. 9t is n t required that technical precisi n descripti n be required, particularly here, by the nature the g ds t be seized, their descripti n must be rather general, since the requirement a technical descripti n uld mean that n arrant c uld issue. (3e ple v. "ee) ¯ />& %=) 9t must be speciic as ar as the circumstances ill rdinarily all . (icr s t v. axic rp) 9t is n t required that a technical descripti n be given because that uld mean that O arrant c uld issue. (Alvarez v. CÃ9) A search arrant may be said t particularly describe the things t be seized hen: a.m the descripti n therein is as speciic as the circumstances ill rdinarily all , b.m r hen the descripti n expresses a c nclusi n act n t la by hich the arrant icer may be guided in making the search and seizure. c.m r hen the things described are limited t th se, hich bear direct relati n t the ense r hich the arrant is being issued. (Bache & C . 9nc. v. uiz) As t hat is t be taken, n thing is let t the discreti n the icer executing the arrant. "hus, the speciic pr perty t be searched r sh uld be s particularly described as t preclude any p ssibility seizing any ther pr perty. B ", the la d es n t require that the things t be seized must be described in precise and minute detail as t leave n r m r d ubt n the part searching auth rities.(aallej v. CA) "he articles subject the search and seizure need n t be s invariant as t require abs lute c nc rdance beteen th se seized and th se described in the arrant. Substantial similarity th se articles described as a class r species uld suice. (Y use AlÚh ul v. CA) /¯ ) &%,%#!$% . 9t is a suicient descripti n i icer ith the arrant can, ith reas nable e rt, ascertain and identiy the place intended, and distinguish it r m ther places in the c mmunity. 9n the determinati n hether a search arrant describes the premises t be searched ith suicient particularity, it has been held "that the executing icer's pri r kn ledge as t the place intended in the arrant is relevant. "he executing icer may l k t the aidavit in the icial c urt ile t res lve an ambiguity in the arrant as t the place t be searched." (Burg s Sr. v. Chie Sta). 6Æ m. Sandy Crab and the plagiarist. "he particularity the place is essential t the issuance search arrants t av id the exercise the en rcing icers discreti n. "he place t be searched as set ut in the arrant, cann t be ampliied r m diied by the icers¶ n pers nal kn ledge the premises, r the evidence they adduced in supp rt their applicati n r the arrant. "he c ntr lling subject search arrants is the place indicated in the arrant itsel, and n t the place identiied by the p lice. (3e ple v. Ãrancisc ) "yp graphical grr r in arrant is all ed i the descripti n the place t be searched can be distinguished r m ther places, but ill n t be all ed i it is based n the hims r discreti n the peace icer. Search a H use 2 itnesses are required t be present in the search the h use, unless its laul ccupants are in the premises searched. .9 in a arrant r a search the place there is a mistake in the identiicati n the ner, the arrant is n t invalidated i it is pr perly described. (Ãrank y v. B9 ) &¯ ,+ -## As a (#+ *+, arrants must have a name and descripti n the accused. "he p lice sh uld particularly describe the place t be searched and the pers n r things t be seized henever and herever it is easible. Warrants r apprehensi n unidentiied pers ns are v id, unless it c ntains the best

(49) p ssible that ill enable the icer t identiy the accused. H ever, ´-# 4 # sh uld be the excepti n and n t the rule. "he

(50) must be suicient t indicate clearly the pr per pers n up n h m the arrant is t be served. 9t sh uld state: pers nal appearance, peculiarities, ccupati n, place residence and ther circumstances by hich he may be identiied. Having the address and the kn ing that the ne resp nsible ccupies and c ntr ls the building is suicient in rmati n t acquire a search arrant. (3e ple v. ael s ) A arrant arrest against 50 hn D es is the nature a general arrant clearly vi lative at least the requirement particularity descripti n. (3angandaman v. Casar) r9#$* #/!$# !!# . 1A 2010.

(51) m. A search arrant shall n t be issued but up n pr bable cause in c nnecti n ith ne speciic ense. (St nehill v. Di kn ) ', ! & 1.m Criminal Search ± requires pr bable cause. Æm C nstructive Search(such as ?

(52)

(53) ) ± rder r the pr ducti n b ks and papers. p n m ti n any party sh ing g d cause and up n n tice t all ther parties, the c urt may rder t pr duce and permit inspecti n and c pying r ph t graphing d cuments n t privilege hich c ntain evidence material t any matter inv lved in the acti n (aterial Distribut rs v. atividad) m Administrative search ± c nducted t imp se a regulati n r la. 3r bable cause is determined acc rding t the la being implemented. 9 there is n c nsent, ne sh uld get a arrant (Camara v. unicipal C urt).

(54) ¯

(55)

(56) ¯ "he PgS OÃ 3 OCgD g are mere t ls designed t acilitate the attainment justice and that strict and rigid applicati n rules hich uld result in technicalities that tend t rustrate rather than pr m te substantial justice must alays be av ided. (aallej v. CA) HgCg +%)#+ & #) %=* "hus, in the extra rdinary events here arrant is n t necessary t eect a valid search r seizure, r hen the latter cann t be per rmed except ith ut arrant, hat c nstitutes a reas nable r unreas nable search r seizure bec mes purely a judicial questi n, determinable r m the uniqueness the circumstances inv lved, including the purp se the search r seizure,

(57)

(58) ©

(59) , the manner in hich the search and seizure as made, the place r thing searched and the character the articles pr cured. (3e ple v. CÃ9 izal) A search arrant issued by a judge based n a ©© a 3hilippine C nstabulary icer h ©© is invalid. A search arrant must n t be issued based n mere hearsay. "he judge must n t just rehash the statements but must examine them cl sely and ascertain the existence a pr bable cause. ( an v. Ú nzales) 0&+* %#'*+. 6 m. Sandy Crab and the plagiarist. "he Bill ights rders the abs lute exclusi n illegally btained evidence. Secti n 3 explicitly states that illegally btained evidence ³shall be inadmissible r any purp se in any pr ceeding.´ Articles seized based n an invalid arrant may n t be intr duced as evidence in c urt. ( lasc v. 3aň ) **"ake n te that this deense is purely pers nal. 9 &%#&%)#++!*+ 1*%$# 1.m Search as c nducted because a valid arrest (i arrest arrant is declared illegal r invalid, the ruit the p is n us tree d ctrine excludes them r m being admitted int evidence) 2.m 9tem t be searched as ithin the arrestee¶s cust dy r area immediate c ntr l (the area ithin hich the pers n arrested c uld reach r a eap n r evidence t destr y it). 3.m Search as c ntemp rane us ith arrest. Arrest must precede that search; the pr cess cann t be reversed (alacat vs. CA) gxcepti n: A search substantially c ntemp rane us ith an arrest can precede the arrest i the p lice have pr bable cause t make the arrest at the utset the search (3e ple vs. "udtud citing 68 Am.ur 2d) Accused as searched and arrested hile transp rting A crime as actually being c mmitted and he as caught ©

(60) . "hus, a search made up n his pers nal eects as incidental t a laul arrantless arrest. (3e ple v. almstedt) ** te: 3 sadas v. CA said that such an instance might n t all under ³search incidental t laul arrantless arrest.´ ** At the time the peace icers identiied themselves and apprehended the petiti ner as he tried t lee, they did n t kn that he had c mmitted, r as actually c mmitting the ense illegal p ssessi n irearms and ammuniti ns. "hey just suspected that he as hiding s mething in the buri bag. "hey did n t kn hat its c ntents ere. "he said circumstances did n t justiy an arrest ith ut a arrant. (3e ple v. 3 sadas,

(61)

(62) © ©© ! " "# Warrantless search the accused pers nal eects is valid because the existence pr bable cause: the smell marijuana that emanated r m his plastic bag, intelligence rep rts a Caucasian travelling n a bus smuggling marijuana r m Sagada, and hen he as acting suspici usly and attempted t lee hen asked t present his identiicati n papers during a r utine check. 1A 2010.

(63) m. c nducted by A CO icers n the bus he as riding. (3e ple v. almstedt) A arrantless search n a petiti ner perating and selling timber hen his business permit as suspended by the Dg is valid because he had n right t p ssess, sell r disp se lumber pursuant t 3D 705. "he Dg is auth rized t seize his lumber. (ustang Pumber v. CA). 59 %=*!"%)#&%#,+%#"% 1*%$# 1) 3 based n the valid arrantless arrest in hich the p lice are legally present in the pursuit their icial duty. 2) "he evidence as

(64) by the p lice h have the right t be there. 3) "he evidence must be 4) 3 $© evidence ith ut urther search (3e ple vs. aaldez) (See an vs. Ú nzales) Aside r m a search incident t a laul arrest, a arrantless search had been upheld in cases m ving vehicles and the seizure evidence in plain vie, as ell as the search c nducted at p lice r military checkp ints hich e declared are n t illegal per se, and stressed that

(65) © ©

(66)

(67)

(68)

(69) $

(70)

(71)

(72) ©

(73)

(74) (Aniag v. C melec) An 0# %" &%*# c uld nly be res rted t i the icers c nducting the search had reas nable r pr bable cause t believe be re the search that either the m t rist as a la ender r that they uld ind the instrumentality r evidence pertaining t the c mmissi n a crime in the vehicle t be searched. "he existence pr bable cause justiying the arrantless search is determined by the acts each case.

(75) $©

(76)

(77)

(78)

(79) ©

(80)

(81) ©

(82)

(83) "he acti n then the p licemen unreas nably intruded int petiti ner's privacy and the security his pr perty. (Aniag v. C melec) 9 &!$"%#("%&+ "he imp rtant thing is that there as pr bable cause t c nduct the arrantless search. (Caballes vs. CA) Or search is c nducted in excepti nal circumstances (i.e. checkp ints) (aalm nte vs. de ailla). 6m. Sandy Crab and the plagiarist. Searches and seizures ith ut arrant are valid i made up n pr bable cause, that is, up n a belie reas nably arising ut circumstances kn n t the seizing icer, that an aut m bile r ther vehicle c ntains that hich by la is subject t seizure and destructi n. (Carr ll v. nited States) When it is n t practicable t secure a arrant because the vehicle can quickly m ve ut the l cality r jurisdicti n in hich the arrant must be s ught, then a search arrant is n t necessary s l ng as the seizing icer auth rity truly believed that there is pr bable cause. (3e ple v. CÃ9 izal, 3e ple v. P H Wing) "he rules g verning search and seizure a m ving vehicle have steadily liberalized n the basis practicality. "his is s c nsidering that be re a arrant c uld be btained, the place, things and pers ns t be searched must be described t the satisacti n the issuing judge²a requirement hich b rders n the imp ssible in the case smuggling eected by the use a m ving vehicle that can transp rt c ntraband r m ne place t an ther ith impunity. (3e ple v. P H Wing) 9t is quite true the ASAC received ne such in rmati n several days r a eek be re the enc unter; but the act that its agents ailed t btain a arrant in spite the time all ance is n t a sign that they have been remiss in their duty. Because they lacked the necessary in rmati n (such as the exact time/place here the search sh uld be made), ASAC c uld n t have p ssibly secured a valid arrant even i they had reseen its c mpelling necessity. (3e ple v. CÃ9 izal) "he prevalent circumstances the case und ubtedly bear ut the act that the search in questi n as made as regards a m ving vehicle ² petiti ner's vehicle as "lagged d n" by the apprehending icers up n identiicati n. "here re, the p lice auth rities ere justiied in searching the petiti ner's aut m bile ith ut a arrant since the situati n demanded immediate acti n. (Asunci n v. CA) Ãirst all, even th ugh the p lice auth rities already identiied the petiti ner as an alleged shabu dealer and c nirmed the area here he allegedly as plying his illegal trade, they ere uncertain as t the time he uld sh up in the vicinity. Sec ndly, they ere uncertain as t the type vehicle petiti ner uld be in, taking int acc unt rep rts that petiti ner used dierent cars in g ing t and r m the area. Ãinally, there as pr bable cause as the same p lice icers had a previ us enc unter ith the petiti ner, h as then able t evade arrest. When the vehicle as p inted t them by their c nidential in rmant, ith the. 1A 2010.

(84) m. in rmati n that the ccupant there as carrying shabu, the peratives had t act quickly. Otherise, they uld again l se their subject h m they reas nably believed t be c mmitting a crime at that instance. "here uld be n m re time r them t secure a search arrant (3e ple v. Asunci n,

(85)

(86)

(87) ©

(88)

(89) ) 1*%$# !&2,%# (1) gxistence excepti nal circumstances (2) c nducted n a ixed area (3) inspecti n limited t visual search (4) ccupants n t subjected t physical r b dy search (caballes vs. CA) Checkp ints need n t be ann unced because it uld be impractical, and it uld rearn th se h intend t vi late the ban. gven s , badges legitimacy checkp ints may still be inerred r m their ixed l cati n and the regularized manner in hich they are perated. (3e ple v. gscaň ) -9 ,# %" ! %( ± there must be a right hich the pers n has kn ledge and such had intenti nally relinquished 1*%$# !!!&%"%"!%( (1) 9t must appear that the right exists (2) "he pers n inv lved had kn ledge, actual r c nstructive the existence such right. (3) Said pers n had an actual intenti n t relinquish the right. (4) 9t must be underst d t c ver nly hat is included ithin the terms the language (aer y vs. Payague) When a pers n gives his c nsent t be searched, he aives his right against arrantless searches and seizures. (3e ple v. Pacerna) "he apprehending icers even s ught the permissi n petiti ner t search the car, t hich the latter agreed. As such, since the shabu as disc vered by virtue a valid arrantless search and the petiti ner himsel reely gave his c nsent t said search, the pr hibited drugs und as a result ere admissible in evidence. (Asunci n v. CA). ³mere manicurist,´ the SC held that ³"he icers the la cann t be blamed i they act n appearances. "here as a pers n inside h r m indicati ns as ready t accede t their request. gven rdinary c urtesy uld preclude them r m inquiring t cl sely as t hy she as there.´ r9* $ & . ade by a cust ms icer r ne deputized by cust ms. "he mere act that a pers n in p ssessi n an item, hich duties assigned t it have O" been paid, justiies the arrantless search; the item is c nsidered Ú vernment 3r perty because imp rt duties have n t been paid ith prejudice t the Ú vernment. 9mp rted g ds remain under the jurisdicti n Bureau Cust ms as 9mp rtati n 9s n t terminated. ("ari and Cust ms C de). BOC acquires exclusive jurisdicti n ver imp rted g ds, r the purp ses en rcement cust ms las, r m the m ment the g ds are actually in its p ssessi n r c ntr l. (3apa vs. ag ) "he right against arrantless searches is aut matically in acc rdance ith cust ms rules and regulati ns, hich is strictly bserved in internati nal practice. "he search in an airp rt is made pursuant t r utine airp rt security pr cedure, all ed under Sec. 9 A 6235 states: ³any h lder an airline ticket and his baggage are subject t search r, and seizure , pr hibited materials r substances. 3assengers reusing the search shall n t be all ed t b ard.´ Once searched, and und t have illegal materials n them, a pers n is caught ©

(90) , hich means he r she can be laully arrested ith ut a arrant. (3e ple v. Cant n) 9 ,#) % 2*+ ,*, !*+ (a) the general interest eective crime preventi n and detecti n and (b) the pressing interest saety and selpreservati n hich permit the icer t take steps t assure himsel that the pers n is n t armed that may be used against him. (alacat v. CA). "he right against arrantless searches and seizures is a purely pers nal right, as such, n b dy else sh uld be able t aive the right r the accused.. ' ,."he pr hibiti n n unreas nable vi lated hen a p lice icer st ps a suspect ith ut pr bable cause t arrest, i the p lice suspici n that the pers n has c mmitted, is c a crime.. **H ever in P © here a man identiied hersel as the ie the ccupant and gave c nsent t the search and v luntarily surrendered papers the absent ccupant but turned ut t be a. Ã r their n pr tecti n, the p lice may per rm a quick surace search the pers n¶s uter cl thing r eap ns i they have reas nable suspici n that the pers n st pped is armed. #/+ * ,%&%# must be based n ³speciic. 6r m. Sandy Crab and the plagiarist. 1A 2010. searches and seizures is n t n the street and searches him icer has a reas nable mmitting, r is ab ut t c mmit.

(91) m. and articulable acts.´ While pr bable cause is n t required t c nduct a "st p and risk," it nevertheless h lds that mere suspici n r a hunch ill n t validate a "st p and risk." A (#*%# # must exist, in light the p lice icer's

(92)

(93) , t arrant the belie that the pers n detained has eap ns c ncealed ab ut him. ("erry v. Ohi , cited in alacat v. CA) ule r St p and Ãrisk: 1.m 3 lice icer bserves

(94)

(95) 2.m

(96) that the pers n is engaged in s me type criminal activity. m 9 ©© as a p liceman up n appr ach. %m akes & 'm © r his n r thers saety. . **"he petiti ner as acting suspici usly, and hen the 93 icers appr ached him and identiied themselves, the accused tried t lee ith his buri bag, there as ,//+&* that he as c ncealing s mething illegal in the bag and it as the right and duty the p lice icers t inspect the same. (3 sadas v. CA) ?9 0%(# #) $(#&' &%&*$ #& ± urgency and exigency the m ment dispenses the need r arrants @9A#A * ,%&%#+ )*( Sec. 36 A 9165 and its implementing rules and regulati ns (9 ), as c uched, c ntain pr visi ns speciically directed t ards preventing a situati n that uld unduly embarrass the empl yees r place them under a humiliating experience. While every icer and empl yee in a private establishment is under the la deemed rearned that he r she may be a p ssible subject a drug test, n b dy is really singled ut in advance r drug testing. "he rand m drug testing shall be undertaken under c nditi ns calculated t pr tect as much as p ssible the empl yee's privacy and dignity. "he intrusi n int the empl yees' privacy, under A 9165, is acc mpanied by pr per saeguards, particularly against embarrassing leakages test results, and is relatively minimal. **"he pr bablecause standard is peculiarly related t criminal investigati ns and may be unsuited t determining the reas nableness administrative searches here the Ú vernment seeks t prevent the devel pment hazard us c nditi ns. "he American C urt has held that a arrant and inding pr bable cause are unnecessary in the public sch l c ntext because such requirements uld unduly interere ith the maintenance the sit and. 6 m. Sandy Crab and the plagiarist. in rmal disciplinary pr cedures needed. (aer nia Sch Dist. a. Act n; B ard gducati n v. garls: in justiying the reas nableness arrantless drug tests in public sch ls) $)'!#(!*+ %=* Art 3, sec 2 pr tects n t nly th se h appear t be inn cent but als th se h appear t be guilty but are nevertheless presumed inn cent until the c ntrary is pr ved. (H3 Úarments v. CA) 9n the case at bar, the seizure as made ith ut any arrant. "he evidence did n t justiy the arrantless search and seizure the resp ndent¶s g ds. "he petiti ners and the raiding party had en ugh time t apply r a judicial arrant but they did n t d s , and thus t k thus t k the risk a suit r damages. "here as n pr bable cause r the seizure. "he ant nness the r ngul seizure justiies the aard exemplary damages. (H3 Úarments v. CA) & #) %=* :!"#*#)!",*, ; When an rder is issued in virtue the pr visi ns ule 21, it pertains t a civil pr cedure hich cann t be identiied r c nused ith the unreas nable searches pr hibited by the C nstituti n. But in the err ne us hyp thesis that the pr ducti n and inspecti n b ks and d cuments a c mpany rdered by the C urt is tantam unt t a search arrant, the pr cedure utlined by ule 21 and ll ed by a judge place them the realm the pr hibited unreas nable searches. 9 a party in a case has interest in the b ks and d cuments in questi n, then it means that they are material and imp rtant t the issues the case, and that justice ill be better served i all the acts pertinent t the c ntr versy are placed be re the trial c urt. (aterial Distribut rs v. atividad) ?

(97)

No results found