28 September 1994] Special Courts for kidnapping, Robbery, Dangerous Drugs, Carnapping
and Other Heinous Crimes under R.A. No. 7659.
2. Substantive Rights
a. Const. (1987), art. III ;
b. Const. (1987), art. VIII, sec 5 (5);
c. Rule 115, 2000 Rules on Criminal Procedure ;
d. Republic Act. No. 7438;
e. DOJ-NPS Manual, Part XI, secs. 1, 2;
f. Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act, Secs. 60-61;
3. DOJ Inquest and Preliminary Investigation Procedure
a. DOJ Department Order No. 70 [2000 NPS Rule on Appeal];
b. DOJ Circular No. 61 (1993) [New Rules on Inquest];
c. DOJ National Prosecution Service, 2008 Manual for Prosecutors [see Reserved Section);
4. Special Rules and Procedures
a. SC AM No. 00-04-07-SC [Child Witness Rule];
b. SC AM No. 02-1-18-SC [Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law];
c. SC AM No. 02-1-19-SC [Rule on Commitment of Children];
d. SC AM No. 02-2-07-SC [Amendments to Rule 110, sec. 5];
e. SC AM No. 03-1-09-SC [Rule on Guidelines to be Observed by the Trial Judges and Clerks of Court in the Conduct of Pre-Trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures]
f. Rule on DNA Evidence A.M. No. 06-11-5 -SC October 2, 2007
g. Rule on the Writ of Amparo [A.M. No. 07-9-12-SC, 25 September 2007]
h. Rule on the Writ of Habeas Data [A.M. No.08-1-16-SC dated 22 January 2008]
i. S.C., A.M. No. 09-6-8-SC, “The Rules of Procedure for Environmental Cases.”
j. S.C. “A.M. No. 11-6-10-SC (Re: Guidelines for Litigation in Quezon City Trial Courts). February 21, 2012 [http:// sc.judiciary.gov.ph/admin matters/AM No 11-6-10-SC.pdf)
Amy Rossabi, The Colonial Roots of Criminal Procedure in the Philippines, 11 Columbia
Journal of Asian Law 175
II. Criminal Jurisdiction & Hierarchy of Courts:
A. Oscar M. Herrera, Remedial Law Vol. IV, Criminal Procedure [Rules 110-127), pp 1-56.
a. Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 (as amended);
b. SC Administrative Circular No. 09-94;
c. The 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure;
d. Pres. Dec. No. 1606, as amended (Sandiganbayan Law);
e. RA 8249 (Amendments to Sandiganbayan Law);
f. Rep. Act. No. 6770 (Ombudsman Law);
See: summary of jurisdiction in Philippine Legal Research.
B. Criminal Jurisdiction
1. Allegations of complaints as basis
Buaya v. Polo, 169 SCRA 471 (1989)
2. Elements & Requisites of Criminal Jurisdiction
a) Subject matter or offense
Revised Penal Code as amended
Special Penal Laws
Law at time of institution of criminal action not at commission
People v. Lagon, 185 SCRA 442 (1990)
Neither at arraignment
Palana v. People, 534 SCRA 296 (2007)
b) Venue or Territory where committed; Purpose
Sec. 18, B.P. 129
Treῆas v. People, G.R. No. 195002, January 25, 2012
Uy v. C.A., 276 SCRA 367 (1997)
Campanano, Jr. Vs. Datuin, 536 SCRA 471 (2007)
People v. Taroy, G.R. #192466, Sept. 12, 2011
Change of Venue:
Art. VIII, Sec. 5 (4), 1987 Constitution
People v. Gutierrez, 36 SCRA 172 (1970)
People v. Pilotin, 65 SCRA 635 (1975)
Mondiguing v. Abaci, G.R. No. 4131 3. November 6, 1975, 68 SCRA 14.
People v. Sola, G.R. No. L-56158-64 March 17, 1981**
See: [A.M. No. 10-1-06 RTC : January 12, 2010]
Re: Petition for Change of Trial Venue of
Criminal Case No. Sa-198, People v. Data
Andal Ampatuan, Sr., et Al. For Rebellion
From the Regional Trial Court of Cotabato
City to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon
City.
c) Person of the Accused
Valdepenas v. People, 16 SCRA 871 (1966)
Miranda v. Tuliao, 486 SCRA 377 +
3. a) Jurisdiction not subject to waiver or agreement
Figueroa v. People, 558 SCRA 63 (2008)
b) Jurisdiction and Double jeopardy
Heirs of Honrales v. Honrales, 629 SCRA 423 (2010)
III. Hierarchy of Courts and the Remedy of Appeal
A. Generally
Rule 122, Secs. 1, 2, 3, 6, 9;
Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. V. People, 427 SCRA 456 (2004)
Section 9. Appeal to the Regional Trial Courts. –
Rules 123, 124, 125;
Alonso, et al vs. Cebu Country Club, Inc., et al., G.R. No.
188471, April 20, 2010.
B. MTC: (Metropolitan Trial Courts, the Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, the Municipal Trial Courts, and the Municipal Circuit Trial Courts)
1. Original & Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction:
Sec. 32, (1) & (2), B.P. 129
Sec, 3 & 4, SC Administrative Circular No. 09-94
2. Appeal
Sec. 1, Rule 122
Sec. 39, B.P. 129
Sec. 2 (a) Rule 122
3. How appeal taken
Sec. 3, (a), Rule 122
C. Regional Trail Court:
1. Original & Exclusive Criminal Jurisdiction
Sec. 20, B.P. 129 (As amended by R.A. No. 7691)
a. Family Courts
Sec. 3 & 5 (a), R.A. No. 8369 (“Family Courts Act of 1997”)
b. Special Courts
Kidnapping, Robbery, Dangerous Drugs, Carnapping and Other Heinous
Crimes under R.A. No. 7659.
S.C. ADMINISTRATIVE CIRCULAR No. 51-96 [Superseding Administrative Order No. 173-94 dated 28 September 1994]
Environmental Courts
(AO No. 23-2008, Re: Designation of Special Courts to Hear, Try, and Decide Environmental Cases, January 28, 2008)
c. Offenses committed by public officials
Sec. 4 (a) par. 2, Pres. Dec. No. 1606, as amended by R.A. No. 7975 and R.A
No. 8249
Lacson v. Executive Secretary, 301 SCRA 298 (1999) +
Magno v. People, 647 SCRA 362 (2011)
2. Appellate jurisdiction
Sec. 1, Rule 122
Sec. 2 (a), Rule 122
3. Appeals from RTC, how appeal taken
a. In the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction
Sec. 2 (b), Rule 122
b. In the exercise of its original jurisdiction
(1) Death Penalty Cases
R.A. 9346
Rule 122, secs 3 (d), 10 (as amended by SC A.M. No. 00-5-03 [October 15, 2004]; Amendments to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure to Govern Death Penalty Cases); cf. RA
9346;
Rule 124, sec. 12, 13 (as amended by SC A.M. No. 00-5-03 [October 15, 2004]; Amendments to the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure to Govern Death Penalty Cases)
Rule 125;
(2) Penalty is reclusion perpetua or life imprisonment
Rule 122, Sec. 3 (c)
Rule 124, Sec 12
Intermediate Appeal
People v. Mateo, 433 SCRA 640 (2004)
People v. Abon, 545 SCRA 606 (2007)
Appeal to Supreme Court not mandatory
People v. Rocha, 531 SCRA 761 (2007)
No automatic appeal
People v. Salome, 500 SCRA 659, Aug. 31, 2006
(3) Other cases
Rule 122, Sec. 2 (c)
To the Court of Appeals
Rule 41, Sec. 2
Rule & Exception:
Tabujara III vs. People, 570 SCRA 229 (2008)
Appeal and certiorari distinguished:
Magestrado vs. People, 527 SCRA 125 (2007)+
c) Appeal by any of several accused
Rule 122, sec.11;
Applied to accused appealing separately
Constantino v. Sandiganbayan, 533 SCRA 205 (2007)
d) Withdrawal of Appeal
Rule 122, sec. 12;
PD 968 (as amended), sec. 4;
e) Effects of death of accused pending appeal
Villegas v. CA, 271 SCRA 148 (1997);
People v. Ayochok, 629 SCRA 324 (2010)
f) Effect of Failure to Appeal a patently wrong judgment
People v. Barro Sr., 338 SCRA 212 (2000);
g) Appeal a judgment of Acquittal:
People v. Asis , 629 SCRA 250 (2010)
Merciales v. C.A. , 379 SCRA 345 (2002)**
Mupas v. People , G.R. No. 189365, Oct. 12, 2011
Bangayan v. Go-Bangayan , G.R. No. 172777/172792, Oct. 19, 2011
4. Ombudsman & Sandiganbayan:
Pres. Dec. No. 1605, as amended (Sandiganbayan Law);
RA 8249 (Amendments to Sandiganbayan Law);
Rep. Act. No. 6770 (Ombudsman Law);
a) Ombudsman:
Uy v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 105965-70. March 20, 2001
Appeals from the Ombudsman:
(i) In administrative cases & annulment of judgment
Fabian vs. Desierto, 295 SCRA 470, September 16, 1998
Macalalag vs. Ombudsman, 424 SCRA 741 (2004)
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Court of Appeals ,
640 SCRA 544 (2011)
(ii) In criminal cases
Golangco vs. Fung, 504 SCRA 321 (2006)
Perez vs. Office of the Ombudsman,
429 SCRA 357 (2004)
Office of the Ombudsman vs. Heirs of Margarita Ventura, 605 SCRA 1(2009)
b) Sandiganbayan -“...in relation to office”
(i) “Grade 27 and above”
Sec. 4(a), (1), (2), (3), (4), & (5) Pres. Dec. No. 1606, as
amended by 7975 and R.A. No. 8249
(ii) Public Officials irrespective of salary grade
Sec. 4(a), 1(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), & (g) Pres. Dec. No, 1606, as
Amended by R.A. No. 7975 and R.A. No. 8249
Rodriguez v. Sandiganbayan , 424 SCRA 236 (2004)
Bariaga v. Sandiganbayan , 457 SCRA 301 (2005)
Organo v. Sandiganbayan , 320 SCRA 684 (1994)
Inding v. Sandiganbayan , 434 SCRA 388 (2004)
Lacson v. Executive Secretary , supra
(iii) Appeals from the RTC
Magno v. People, supra
5. Court of Appeals:
a) Rule 41
Ordinary Appeal (Appeal by Writ of Error)
b) Rule 42
Petition for Review
c) Rule 124
Sec. 8 & Rule 125 Sec. 1
Ivler v. Mondest’o-San Pedro, 635 SCRA 191 (2010)
6. Supreme Court:
a) Generally
Rule 65
Finality of acquittal doctrine and exception:
People vs. Asis , 629 SCRA 250 (2010)
People v. Velasco , 340 SCRA 207 (2000) **
b) Improvident Plea; Remand & Re-arraignment When Proper:
People v. Molina , G.R Nos. 141129-33, December 14, 2001;
Ong vs. Genio , 609 SCRA 188, Dec. 23 2009
c) Even Split or no majority in Supreme Court
Rule 125, sec. 3;
Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals 71 SCRA 231 (1976)
IV. Remedies after Final Judgment
Habeas Corpus
Rule 102
In Re: Writ of Habeas Corpus for Reynaldo de Villa
442 SCRA 706 (2004) **
PART TWO
RULE 126 – SEARCH AND SEIZURE
Pertinent Documents & Pleadings:
1) Search Warrant;
2) Documents as basis for issuance:
Request for Issuance;
Affidavit/s of complainant or witnesses
Others (Photographs, sketches, etc.)
3) Motion to Quash Search Warrant
4) Motion to Suppress
5) Motion for Return of Property Seized
I. Nature, scope and definition
A. Definition & Nature
Const. (1987), art. III, Secs. 2,3;
Rule 126, Secs, 1, 13; +
“Exclusionary Rule”
Stonehill v. Diokno , 20 SCRA 383 (1967);
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
People v. Valdez , 341 SCRA 25 (2000)**
“People not places”
Katz v. U.S. , 389 U.S. 347 (1967);
See: Polo v. David, G.R. No. 181881, October 18, 2011**
Private searches
Governmental interference
People v. Marti , 193 SCRA 57 (1991);
Vessel Security officer
People v. Bongcarawan , 384 SCRA 525 (2002)
See: Spousal or privacy of communication exception?
Zulueta v. C.A. , 253 SCRA 699 (1996)
B. Constitutional and statutory boundaries; limitation on State action
1. Nature of right protected; waiver of protected right
Villanueva v. Querubin, 48 SCRA 349 (1972);
Guanzon v. De Villa , 181 SCRA 623 (1990);
Governmental transgression
People v. Marti, supra
2. Scope of protection
Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 3(1)
Katz c. U.S., supra
Burgos v. Chief of Staff 133 SCRA 800 (1984) Eb;
People v. Valde, supra
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
“Enhanced Senses” and “Reasonable expectation of privacy”:
Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S 27 (2001) – Thermal Imaging device
California v. Ciraolo, 476 U.S 207 (1986) –Aerial “naked eye” observation
Dow Chemicals v. U.S., 476 U.S 227 (1986) – Aerial search using device
United States v. Place, 462 U.S 696 (1983) – Sniff Dog
Hoffa v. United States, 385 U.S 293 (1966) “Plant”
California v. Greenwood, 486 U.S 35 (1988) – Garbage search
Washington vs. Boland, 115 Wn.2d (1990); 800P.2d 1112
Airport searches:
People v. Canton, G.R No. 148825, December 277, 2002
RA 4200 (Anti-wire Tapping Law):
Gaanan vs. IAC , G.R. No. L-69809 October 16, 1986
RA 9272 (Human Security Act of 2007):
Sec. 7-16
Rule 126, sec. 13;
C. Types
1. With A Search Warrant +
a. Generally
Rule 126, sec 1;
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
People v. Aruta, 288 SCRA 626 (1998) ; + ;
Manalili v. CA , 280 SRCA 400 (1997); +
b. Venue of application; jurisdiction of court
Rule 126, sec 2;
BP 129 (as amended by RA 7691), sec. 21;
Interim Rules (January 11, 1983), par. A3;
Malaloan v. CA, 232 SCRA 249 (1994)**; + + +
o Range of enforceability
People v. CA, 291 SCRA 400 (1998);
c. Requisites for issuance
Rule 126, sec. 1; cf. Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 2;
PICOP v. Asuncion, 307 SCRA 253 (1999); +
(1) Concept of probable cause in search warrants +
People v. Estrada , 296 SCRA 383 (1998); +
Microsoft Corporation v. Maxicorp, Inc., 438 SCRA (2004);
People v. Aruta, G.R. No. 120915 April 3, 1998;
Burgos v. Chief of Staff, supra
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 613 (1983); +
Stonehill v. Diokno, supra
(2) Determining probable cause:
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
i) Person Authorized: Who determines?
Const. (1987), Art. III, sec. 2;
Rule 126, sec. 4;
People v. Tuan, G.R. No. 176066. August 11, 2010
Kho v. Makalintal, 306 SCRA 70
Bache v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823 (1971) + (see Oscar Herrera’s digest p. 892)
People v. Mamaril, 420 SCRA 662 (2004)
Tan v. Sy Tiong Gue, 613 SCRA 98 (2010)
ii) Procedure: How is it determined?
Rule 126, sec. 5;
Personal examination by searching questions of complaint of
witness: + + + +
Bache v. Ruiz, supra
Kho vs. Makalintal, supra
PICOP v. Asuncion, supra
People v. Tuan, G.R. No. 176066. August 11, 2010
Roan v. Gonzales, 145 SCRA 687 (1984); +
Coca- Cola v. Gomez, 571 SCRA 18 (2008)
(3) Description of things to be seized +
Kho v. Makalintal, supra;
Bache vs. Ruiz, supra;
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
(4) Description of place to be searched + +
People v. Estrada, supra
Roan vs. Gonzales, supra
PICOP v. Asuncion, supra
People v. C.A., supra
d. Things that may be seized +
Rule 126, sec. 3;
Burgos vs. Chief of Staff, supra +
California v. Greenwood, supra
Washington vs. Boland, supra
Rules on DNA Evidence A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC October 2, 2007
People v. Umanito, G.R. #172607 Oct. 26, 2007
People v. Umanito, G.R. #172607, April 16, 2009
e. Form and content of warrant; lifetime
Rule 126, sec. 1, 6, 10;
Bache v. Ruiz, supra
Mustang Lumber v. CA, 257 SCRA 430 (1996); (nevermind) +
F. Validity of warrant
People v. Estrada, supra
People v. CA, supra
Others: +
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
2. Warrantless Search & Seizure:
a. Search incident to lawful arrest
Rule 126, sec. 13; + + +
People v. Molina G.R. No. 133917, February 19, 2001**
People v. Aruta, G.R. No. 120915 April 3, 1998
People v. Valdez, supra
People v. Padilla, 269 SCRA 402 (1997);
People v. Chua Ho San, 308 SCRA 432 (1999); +
People v. Binad Chua, G.R. Nos. 136066-67, February 4, 2003
Office of the Court Administrator v. Barron, 297 SCRA 376 (1998);
Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969); +
Nolasco v. Pano, 147 SCRA 509 (1987);
Cf. Nolasco v. Pano, 139 SCRA 152 (1985);
Posadas v. CA, 188 SCRA 288 (1990) +
People vs. Cuizon, 265 SCRA 325
Malacat v. CA, 283 SCRA 159 (1997)**;
Warrantless Search of Computers & Cell Phones:
Computers:
U.S. vs. Hill, 459 F.3d 966 (2006)
U.S. vs. Ziegler, 474 F.3d 1184 (9th Cir., January 30, 2007
Polo v. David, supra
Journal Articles:
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
Edward T.M. Garland and Donald F. Samuel, Fourth
Amendment and Computers, Georgia Bar
Journal, Vol. 44, Feb. 2009
Cellphones:
U.S. vs. Finley, 477 F.3d 250
State vs. Smith, 124 Ohio St. 3d 163 (2009)
Journal Articles:
Adam M. Gershowitz , The Iphone Meets the Fourth
Amendment, UCLA Law Review, October, 2008.
Bryan Andrew Stillwagon, Bringing an End to Warrantless
Cell Phone Searches, Summer 2008 Georgia Law Review
b. Consented Search
People v. Malasigul, 63 Phil. 221 (1936);
Alvarez v. CFI, 64 Phil. 48 (1937);
Schneckcloth v Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218 (1973)
People vs. Cuizon, 265 SCRA 325
(1) Peaceful submission not consent to search
Garcia v. Locsin, 65 Phil. 689 (1938);
Written consent:
Roan v. Gonzales, supra
(2) Effect of voluntary surrender
People v. Agbot, 106 SCRA 325 (1981);
(3) Effect of posting bail
Rule 114, sec. 26;
c. “Stop and Frisk”, Roadblocks & Checkpoints, and Other Less Intrusive Searches
“Stop and Frisk”:
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S 1 (1968); +
Minnesota v. Dickerson, 508 U.S. 366 (1993)
Florida v. J. L., 529 U.S. 266 (2000)
People v. Binad Chua, supra
Malacat v. CA, supra
Esquillo v. People, 629 SCRA 370 (2010)
Airport searches:
People v. Canton, G.R. No. 148825, Dec. 27, 2002, supra
Roadblocks & Checkpoints:
Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979); +
Michigan Dept. Of State Police v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444
Alabama v. White, 496 U.S. 325
Caballes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136292, January 15, 2002; +
People v. Lacerna, 278 SCRA 561 (1997)
People v. Solayao, 262 SCRA 255 (1996)
People v. Malmstedt, 198 SCRA 401 (1991)
People v. Encinada, G.R. No. 116720. October 2, 1997
Checkpoints:
Valmonte v. De Villa, 178 SCRA (1989); +
People vs. Vinecario, 420 SCRA 280 (2004);
Aniag vs. COMELEC, 237 SCRA 424 (1994);
People vs. Escano, 323 SCRA 754 (2000)
People vs. Vinecario, 420 SCRA 280 (2004)
d. Moving vehicles/hot pursuit +
Caroll v. US, 267 132 (1925); +
California V. Carney, 471 U.S. 386 (1985)
Papa v. Mago, 22 SCRA 857 (1968); +
Caballes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 136292, January 15, 2002; +
Asuncion v. CA, 302 SCRA 490 (1990); +
Roldan v. Arca, 65 SCRA 336 (1975); +
People v. Lo Ho Wing, 193 SCRA 122 (1990); +
People v. Balingan, 241 SCRA 277 (1995); +
Obra v. CA, 317 SCRA 594 (1999); +
e. “Plain View” Doctrine
Harris v. US, 390 U.S. 234 (1966); +
Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U.S. 472 (1971);
Arizona v. Hicks, 480 U.S. 321 (1987)
Horton v. California, 496 U.S. 128 (1990)
People v. Musa , 217 SCRA 597 (1993); +
People v. Doria , 301 SCRA 668 (1999); +
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
People v. Bolasa, 321 SCRA 459 (1999);
People v. Evaristo, 216 SCRA 431 (1992);
People v. Valdez, 341 SCRA 24 (2000);
People v. Salanguit , 356 SCRA 683 (2001)
f. Private Searches & “State Expansion of Private Search”
People v. Marti , supra +
People v. Bongcarawan, G.R. No. 143944, July 11, 2002
State v. Von Bulow , 475 A. 2d 995 +
See: Zulueta v C.A., 253 SCRA 699 (1996)
g. Extraordinary circumstances:
People v. De Gracia, 233 SCRA 716 (1994);
Bringham City v. Stuart, 126 S. Ct. 1943 (2006)
h. Concepts of: “Fruit of the Poisonous Tree”; “Attenuation”; “Inevitable Discovery” (where did it come from?)
Nardone v. U.S. 308 U.S. 338
Wong Sun v. U.S. 371 U.S. 471
Nix vs. Williams, 467 U.S. 431
II. Procedure for service of warrant; post-service procedure
A. Service of warrant
1. Time of search
Rule 126, sec. 9;
2. Two-witness rule
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
, 01/22/13,
Scatter shot warrant is void. Authoritative in COMPUTER SEARCHES. The only case that used the 2-pronged test in “Katz”. Disposition: no reasonable expectation of privacy in government computer. The computer is of public ownership; it can only be used for public purposes. Cited a case: employee’s laptop was searched. The laptop belongs in his private capacity. The search violates his right of privacy. IMPORTANT: distinction of public vs. private character of computer. e.g. a policeman (working sideline as private security guard in motel) discovering marijuana in a motel room. Admissible or not? May the policeman dissociate himself from being a policeman so that he is not an agent of the State? (Check US jurisprudence) Forwarding companies: guidelines sent by gov’t to conduct searches. TEST: Look if agent is acting in private capacity or for government? Look at INTEREST to discover: interest of government, not for private interest. WRONG DECISION. The rule of evidence allows the admissibility of the documents here. Wife is exempted, can do a search. Look at Rule 130! The privilege of communication is separate from unreasonable search and seizure. Mendoza anchors argument on privacy of communication, not search. Dept. of Tourism: has photos of all hotels/motels “ZONA” (?) / saturation drives. Rule 126, Sec. 1 vs. Sec. 13. Why SC wrong? SC said to prove zoning. But SolGen already admitted there was. 2-pronged test: 1. Subjective expectation of privacy 2. Objective expectation SC attached right to privacy to defect of technology (e.g. possibility of a party line). Agree or disagree? How about “Imbestigador”? THE LAW ONLY CONSIDERS “VOICE”. IT DOES NOT COVER PHOTOS OR VIDEOS. In expose films, they don’t present the voice. May a search warrant be issued for purposes merely of an administrative investigation? Construed strictly against State and liberally in favor of individual. There is no presumption of regularity in attempting to justify it. Defines PROBABLE CAUSE for purposes of the search. In US cases of search, decisions/conclusions are FACT-BASED. This case is fact-based. Know the enumeration of exceptions in this case. What is not present: automobile search. Here, there is TIME sufficient to determine probable cause for purposes of warrant issuance. CRUX OF THIS CASE: Why not a valid warrantless search? Aling Rosa WAS NOT SUSPICIOUS-LOOKING. Did not give rise to reason to conduct a search. What is the standard here? There is no intention by Aling Rosa to relinquish the right. Merely respected police officers. Stop and frisk IS NOT ACTUALLY AN EXCEPTION. It is not a warrantless search. No probable cause is required, only SUSPICION, BASED ON EXPERIENCE OF POLICE OFFICER. It is in the context of crime prevention. If there is probable cause, it can already justify a warrantless search. Should "Terry" doctrine apply in this case? No. Context/purpose: for the safety of the officer. (Panganiban 'misread' the case) Officer did not insert his hands into the pocket. "Terry" doctrine: officer does an investigation arising from suspicion (short of probable cause). The stop is a seizure, but it is only to the extent of the investigation. Pat down is only to the extent to see if there are any weapons. Stop and frisk is related to SAFETY. Wrong application in this case: weapon cannot be contained in the wallet. No threat to the life of the officer. Doesn't justify the opening of wallet. SC doctrine: suspicion resulting into warrantless search. General rule: any court with territorial jurisdiction may issue the warrant. (because there may be no case filed yet) Exceptions: Where place of commission of crime is not known: any court with territorial jurisdiction of the place indicated in the warrant. Even if place of commission of crime is known: any place within the judicial region where crime was committed, for compelling reasons. Exception to exception: where criminal action has already been filed, only in the court where such action is pending. Range of enforceability Nature of a search warrant: writ of discovery. It is only a PROCESS. Hence, it is not yet necessary that FULL JURISDICTION be had over the criminal offense. A search warrant proceeding is not a criminal case. Generally issued by a court in its ancillary jurisdiction, and not pursuant to its original jurisdiction. READ THIS CASE: it already outlines everthing in the last portion. 2 remedies: 1. Motion to quash warrant: goes into the validity of issuance of search warrant (e.g. lack of probable cause, no personal examination) -- DEFECTS IN THE ISSUANCE. WHEN TO FILE? Wait for it to be issued, and served. WHERE TO FILE? ONLY THE COURT WHERE THE SW WAS ISSUED. Exception: where the principal criminal action is filed/pending. Exception to exception: compelling reason to file MTQ in issuing court. 2. Motion to suppress evidence / object to the admissibility of evidence: does not address defects in the issuance. Motion for evidence not to be presented during trial. Objection to admissibility of evidence is distinguished from objection to jurisdiction of person. After arraignment, accused only waives objecting to jurisdiction over person. He does not waive objecting to admissibility of evidence. "These are alternative, not cumulative, remedies." Prof: nonsense. File MTQ + suppression. Anywhere in the Philippines. Requisites: Probable cause Connected with ONE specific offense Rule: need not specify specific section of law, but specify the specific punishable acts Personal determination by judge Personal examination by judge By searching questions Facts personally known by witnesses In writing and under oath Sworn statements and affidavits of witnesses attached to the record Particular description of place to be searched Particular description of thing to be seized Applicant forgot to attach a “no license” certification from an agency of the PNP, which could have been easily obtained. Probable cause is “such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in conection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.” BEST EVIDENCE RULE OF PROBABLE CAUSE Only the judge, and no other, may issue warrants. Exception: warrant of arrest in deportation proceedings Perjury is the disincentive for witnesses to lie. Affidavits are insufficient. Judge must take depositions in writing. Examination must be probing and exhaustive, not routinary and pro forma. It must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit, but judge must make his own inquiry about the intent and justification of the application. Failure to comply with requirements of examination constitutes “grave abuse of discretion”. TEST OF PARTICULARITY OF THINGS TO BE SEIZED: Description is as specific as circumstances will ordinarily allow; Description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law; Description is limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. Problem: absence of meeting of minds between personal knowledge of searching officer and what judge had in mind in the description of the place. Typographical errors of address. etc. What is the form when the person is the one to be searched? Ownership is unessential. It is sufficient that warrant is directed against person with possession/control of the thing. Subject of the offense Fruits of the offense Means of the offense: used or intended to be used Search warrant is severable. Must be on the person of the person arrested: Dangerous weapons Connected with commission of offense: (a) means, (b) proof When to search? Either during commission or after. Arrest must precede the search. Otherwise: both arrest and search are void, if the arrest is based on fruits of the search. Factors: Person Time Place Subject Interior of vehicle: probable cause is required. 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 In Eiseman we enunciated four specific factors to consider in determining whether a governmental expansion of a private search is so significant as to invoke the protection of the Fourth Amendment. Applied to this case, these include the following: 1. The police officer's experience and expertise. 2. The question of whether in light of his expertise, the officer had formed an opinion with a reasonable degree of certainty concerning the identity of the substance previously searched by private parties before expanding the search. 3. The extent of the intrusion required to perform the expansion. 4. The question of whether such intrusion impinged upon any further expectation of privacy that remained after the exposure of the contents by private persons.
Rule 126, sec. 8;
People v. Gesmundo, 219 SCRA 743 (1993);
3. Breaking of door or window to effect search
Rule 126, sec. 7;
People vs. Huang Zhen Hua, 439 SCRA 350 (2004)
B. Post-service procedure
People v. Gesmundo, supra
1. Issuance of Receipt
Rule 126, sec. 11 ;
People v. Lacbanes, 270 SCRA 193 (1997);
2. Delivery of property and inventory; return and proceedings on the return;
Rule 126, sec. 12;
People v. Gesmundo, supra
III. Remedies against unreasonable search and seizure
1. “Exclusionary Rule” : Motion to quash search
Warrant or suppress evidence:
Art. III, Sec. 3 (2)
Rule 126, sec. 14;
RA 8493, sec. 2 (d) (cf. Rule 118, sec. 2[d]; )
Stonehill v. Diokno, supra
Bache v. Ruiz, supra
Rakes v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978);
PICOP v. Asuncion, supra
2. Waiver of Jurisdiction & Non Waiver of Admissibility:
People vs. Lapitaje, 397 SCRA 674 (2003);
Esquillo vs. People, G.R. No. 182010, August 25, 2010 (dissent of Bersamin)
3. Return of property illegally seized:
Uy Kheytin v. Villareal, 42 Phil. 892 (1920);
Magoncia v. Palacio, 80 Phil. 170 (1948);
Collector v. Villaluz, 71 SCRA 356 (1976);
Mata v. Bayona, 128 SCRA 388 (1984);
4. Criminal liability and Civil Damages:
Rev. Pen. Code, Arts. 128, 129, 130, 206;
MHP Garments v. CA, 236 SCRA 227 (1994);
Remedy against warrantless searches:
Galvante v. Casimiro, G.R. No. 162808, April 22, 2008
PART THREE
RULE 113- ARREST
Pertinent Pleadings & Documents:
1) Warrant of Arrest
2) Petition for Habeas Corpus
3) Motion to Quash Warrant of Arrest
4) Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause
I. Nature and Definition
A. Definition
Rule 113, Secs. 1, 2:
Sanchez v. Demetriou, 227 SCRA 627 (1993);
People v. Sequiῆo, 264 SCRA 79 (1996);
Defensor- Santiago v. Vasquez, 217 SCRA 663 (1993);
Cf. Diplomatic and parliamentary immunities from arrest
Const. (1987), art. VI, sec. 11;
Rev. Pen. Code, art. 145;
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Arts. 31-37;
Visiting Forces Agreement, Art. V;
B. Types
1. With a warrant
a. When and how warrant issued
Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 2;
Rule 112, sec. 6;
May dismiss instead of issue warrant
Ong vs. Genio, 609 SCRA 188, Dec. 23, 2009
b. Requisites for issuance
Const. (1987), art. III, sec. 2:
Rule 112, Sec.6 (a);
Rule 112, Sec. 8;
1) By a Regional Trial Court;
People v. Grey, 625 SCRA 523 (2010)
Allado v. Diokno, 232 SCRA 192 (1994);
Placer v. Villanueva, 126 SCRA 463 (1983);
People v. Inting, 187 SCRA 788 (1990);
Cojuangco v. Sandiganbayan, 300 SCRA 367 (1998);
Soliven v. Makasiar,
Lim v. Felix, 194 SCRA 292 (1991);
Pangandaman v. Casar, 159 SCRA 599 (1988);
People v. Court of Appeals, 301 SCRA 475 (1999);
Roberts v. C.A. 254 SCRA 307
Webb vs. De Leon, 247 SCRA 652
Ho vs. People, 280 SCRA 285 (1997)
Okabe vs. Gutierrez, 429 SCRA 685 (2004)
AAA vs. Carbonell, 524 SCRA 496 (2007)
DOJ- National Prosecution Service Manual for Prosecutors,
Part VI, sec. 1;
2) Inferior Courts
Rule 112, Sec. 6 (b)
Examine complainant and witnesses:
Tabujara III vs. People, 570 SCRA 229 (2008)
Not mandatory to issue warrant:
Gutierrez v. Hernandez, A.M. No. MTJ-06-1628, June 8, 2007,
c. How effected or served
Rule 113, secs. 2, 3, 4, 6, 7;
People v. Lumayok, 139 SCRA 1 (1985);
People v. Albior, 163 SCRA 332 (1988);
d. Assistance; breaking into and out of building or enclosure
Rule 113, secs. 10, 11, 12;
People vs. Huang Zhen Hua, G.R. No. 139301, September 29, 2004
2. Warranties (In flagrante Delicto & “Hot Pursuit”)
a. When justified:
(1) Old Rule :
Rule 113, sec. 5, 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure
People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1 (1985);
(2) New Rule :
Rule 113, sec. 5
Umil v. Ramos, 187 SCRA 311 (1990)
Umil v. Ramos, 202 SCRA 251 (1991)
Go vs. Court of Appeals, 206 SCRA 138 (1992)
Larranaga v. C.A., 287 SCRA 581 (1998);
People v. Tudtud, 412 SCRA 142 (2003);
People v. Molina, G.R. No. 133917, February 19, 2001**
People v. Chua, 396 SCRA 657 (2003);
People v. Mendez, G.R. No. 147671, November 21, 2002;
People v. Doria, 301 SCRA 668 (1999)
N.B. J. Panganiban, Concurring
Cadua v. CA, 312 SCRA 703 (1999);
People v. Montilla, 285 SCRA 703 (1998);
People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1 (1986);
People v. Jayson, 282 SCRA 166 (1997);
Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968);
Padilla v. C.A. 269 SCRA 402 (1997)
People v. Racho, 626 SCRA 633 (2010)
b. Method of arrest by officer
Rule 113, sec. 8;
People v. Mahinay, 302 SCRA 455 (1999)
R.A. 7438 [Guidelines, procedures and duties of officers arresting, detaining, inviting or investigating at the time of arrest or at custodial interrogation];
c. Method of arrest by private person
Rule 113, sec. 9;
d. Post-arrest procedure
Rule 112, sec. 7;
e. Exceptions construed strictly
People v. Valdez, 304 SCRA 140 (1999);
People v. Burgos, 144 SCRA 1 (1985);
f. Special Rule for Juveniles in Conflict with Law
Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with Law (RJCL), secs. 6, 7;
Rep. Act. No. 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006; JJWA),
secs. 21, 22;
3. John Doe warrants:
People v. Veloso, 48 Phil. 169;
Pangandaman v. Casar, 159 SCRA 599 (1988);
DOJ Circular No. 50, October 29, 1990;
4. “DNA” Warrants:
[DNA warrants: A panacea for old, cold rape cases? Georgetown Law Journal, Apr 2002 by