Post on 05-Apr-2018
8/2/2019 Properties Subject to Seizure
1/33
PROPERTIES
SUBJECT TO
SEIZURE
8/2/2019 Properties Subject to Seizure
2/33
Rule 126 Search and Seizure.Sec 3. Personal property to be seized.
A search warrant may be issued for
the search and seizure of personal
property:a) Subject of the offense;
b) Stolen or embezzled and otherproceeds, or fruits of the offense;
c) Used or intended to be used as means
for the commission of an offense
8/2/2019 Properties Subject to Seizure
3/33
ADMISSIBILITY OF
ILLEGALLY SEIZED
EVIDENCE
8/2/2019 Properties Subject to Seizure
4/33
a) Art. III. Section 2. The right of the people to be
secured in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects against unreasonable searches and
seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall be inviolable, and no search
warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue exceptupon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainantand the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched
and the persons or things to be seized
8/2/2019 Properties Subject to Seizure
5/33
Section 3.
2. Any evidence obtained in violation of
this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in anyproceeding.
Articles illegally seized are not
admissible as evidence.
8/2/2019 Properties Subject to Seizure
6/33
The following evidence are inadmissible:
1. evidence obtained in violation of the
right against unreasonable search and
seizure
2. evidence obtained in violation of the
privacy of communication and
correspondence, except upon lawfulorder of the court or when public safety
or order requires otherwise
8/2/2019 Properties Subject to Seizure
7/33
3. evidence consisting of extra-judicial
confessions which are uncounselled, or
when the confessant was not properlyinformed of his constitutional rights, or
when the confession was coerced
4. evidence obtained in violation of the
right against self-incrimination
8/2/2019 Properties Subject to Seizure
8/33
The Exclusionary Rule Principle
- the principle which mandates that
evidence obtained from an illegal
arrest, unreasonable search or coerciveinvestigation, or in violation of a
particular law, must be excluded from
the trial and will not be admitted as
evidence.
8/2/2019 Properties Subject to Seizure
9/33
1. The principle judges the admissibility ofevidence based on HOW the evidence isobtained or acquired and not WHAT theevidence proves.
2. The principle is to be applied only if it is soexpressly provided for by the constitution orby a particular law. Even if the manner of
obtaining the evidence is in violation of acertain law but the law does not declare thatthe evidence is inadmissible, then suchevidence will be admissible.
8/2/2019 Properties Subject to Seizure
10/33
Example:
The accused claimed that information
about his bank accounts i.e. trustfunds, was obtained in violation of
the Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law
(R.A. 1405) and moved to have thembe excluded as evidence.
8/2/2019 Properties Subject to Seizure
11/33
HELD: R.A. 1405 nowhere provides that anunlawful examination of bank accounts shall
render the evidence there from inadmissible inevidence. If Congress has both established aright and provided exclusive remedies for itsviolation, the court would be encroaching
upon the prerogatives of congress if itauthorizes a remedy not provided for bystatute. Absent a specific reference to anexclusionary rule, it is not appropriate for the
courts to read such a provision into the act.(Ejercito vs. Sandiganbayan, 509 SCRA 190,Nov. 30, 2006).
8/2/2019 Properties Subject to Seizure
12/33
The Doctrine of the Fruit of the
Poisonous Tree
1. Evidence will be excluded if it wasgained through evidence uncovered inan illegal arrest, unreasonable search
or coercive interrogation, or violationof a particular exclusionary law.
2. It is an offshoot of the Exclusionary
Rule which applies to primaryevidence. The doctrine applies only tosecondary or derivative evidence.
8/2/2019 Properties Subject to Seizure
13/33
WARRANTLESS ARRESTS
Rule 113. Section 5.
A peace officer or a private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person:
a) When, in his presence, the person to be
arrested has committed, is actuallycommitting, or is attempting to commit andoffense;
8/2/2019 Properties Subject to Seizure
14/33
b.) When an offense has just been committed
and he has probable cause to believe based
on personal knowledge of facts orcircumstances that the person to be arrested
has committed it; and
c.) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner
who has escaped from a penal establishment
of place where he is serving final judgment oris temporarily confined while his case is
pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement to another.
8/2/2019 Properties Subject to Seizure
15/33
When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
and offense;
Illustration:
Umil v. Ramos (187 SCRA 311). The
Supreme Court held that rebellion is acontinuing offense. Accordingly, a rebel may
be arrested at any time, with or without
warrant, as he is deemed to be in the act of
committing an offense at any time of the
day or night.
8/2/2019 Properties Subject to Seizure
16/33
When an offense has just been committed and he has probable
cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or
circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it;
Illustration: Go v. Court of Appeals (206 SCRA 138). Six days after
the shooting, as the petitioner presented himself
before the San Juan Police Station to verify new reports
that he was being hunted, the police detained him
because an eyewitness had positively identified him as
the gunman who shot Maguan. The Court held that
there was no valid arrest; it cannot be considered aswithin the meaning of the offense had just been
committed inasmuch as six days had already elapsed,
neither did the policemen have personal knowledge of
facts that Go shot Maguan.
8/2/2019 Properties Subject to Seizure
17/33
C. When the person to be arrested is
a prisoner who has escaped from a
penal establishment of place where
he is serving final judgment or istemporarily confined while his case is
pending, or has escaped while being
transferred from one confinement toanother.
8/2/2019 Properties Subject to Seizure
18/33
An arrest may also be made without warrant where
the right thereto is waived by the person arrested,
provided he knew of such right and knowingly
decided not to invoke it.
Illustration:
People v. Salvatierra. Appellant isestopped from questioning the illegality
of his arrest when he voluntarily
submitted himself to the jurisdiction ofthe court by entering a plea of not guilty
and by participating in the trial.
8/2/2019 Properties Subject to Seizure
19/33
WARRANTLESS SEARCHES
a) When the right is voluntarily waived.
Consent must be voluntary, i.e.unequivocal, specific and intelligently
given, uncontaminated by any duress or
coercion.
8/2/2019 Properties Subject to Seizure
20/33
Consent to a search is not to be lightly
inferred but must be shown by clear and
convincing evidence.Illustration:
People v. Correa (285 SCRA 679). The police
officers were informed that the accused woulddeliver marijuana. They followed the accused
and later accosted him and one of the
policemen opened a tin can in the jeepney ofthe accused but the accused did not protest,
the Supreme Court held that there was
consent.
8/2/2019 Properties Subject to Seizure
21/33
People v. Cuizon (256 SCRA 329). The
accused gave written consent for the NBI
agents to search his bags.
People v. Exala (221 SCRA 494). The right
was deemed waived because the accused
did not object to the admissibility of the
evidence during the trial, and the
submissive stance after the discovery of the
bag and the absence of any protest which
thus confirmed their acquiescence.
8/2/2019 Properties Subject to Seizure
22/33
b. When there is valid reason to stop-
and-frisk.
Illustration: People v. Sy Chua (G.R. Nos. 136066-67, February 4, 2003). The
Supreme Court said that for a stop-and-frisk situation, the
police officer should properly introduce himself and make
initial inquiries, approach and restrain a person who manifestsunusual and suspicious conduct, in order to check the latters
outer clothing for possibly concealed weapons. The
apprehending officer must have a genuine reason, in
accordance with the police officers experience and thesurrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person to
be held has weapons or contraband concealed about him. It
should therefore be emphasized that a search and seizure
should precede the arrest for the principle to apply.
C h h h ( d i ) i
8/2/2019 Properties Subject to Seizure
23/33
C. Where the search (and seizure) is an
incident to a lawful arrest.
Section 13. Rule 126. A person lawfully arrestedmay be searched for dangerous weapons oranything which may have been used or constitute
proof in the commission of an offense, without asearch warrant.
As a rule, the arrest must precede the search;
the process cannot be reversed. Nevertheless,probable cause to make the arrest at the outsetof the search. (People v. Nuevas, G.R. No.170233, February 22, 2007)
8/2/2019 Properties Subject to Seizure
24/33
Peoplev. De la Cruz, 184 SCRA 416). The
Supreme Court said that while it may beconceded that in a buy-bust operation,
there is seizure of evidence from ones
person without a search warrant,nonetheless, because the search is an
incident to a lawful arrest, there is no
necessity for a search warrant.
8/2/2019 Properties Subject to Seizure
25/33
d. Search of vessels and aircraft.
Search and seizure without warrant of vesselsand aircraft for violations of the customs lawshave been the traditional exception to the
constitutional requirement of a search warrant,because the vessel can be quickly moved out ofthe locality or jurisdiction in which the searchmust be sought before such warrant could be
secured; hence, it is not practicable to require asearch warrant before such search or seizure canbe constitutionally effected. (Roldan, Jr.,etc. andthe Philippine Navy v. Hon. Arca, etc., et. Al., 65
SCRA 336)
8/2/2019 Properties Subject to Seizure
26/33
e. Search of moving vehicles.
A warrantless search of a moving vehicle
is justified on the ground that it is not
practicable to secure a warrant because
the moving vehicle can be moved quickly
out of the locality or jurisdiction in which
the warrant may be sought.
8/2/2019 Properties Subject to Seizure
27/33
The stop and search without a warrant
at a military or police checkpoints, has
been declared not to be illegal per se so
long as it is required by the exigencies of
public order and conducted in a way leastintrusive to the motorists. (Valmonte v.
de Villa, 178 SCRA 211). This case,
however, excited much attention andcriticism with Justices Cruz and
Sarmiento dissenting.
f Inspection of buildings and other
8/2/2019 Properties Subject to Seizure
28/33
f. Inspection of buildings and other
premises for the enforcement of fire,
sanitary and building regulations.
This is basically an exercise of the police power of thestate, and would not require a search warrant. Theseare routine inspections which, however, must beconducted during reasonable hours. However, in
Camara v. Municipal Court, the US Supreme Courtreversed the conviction of a person who had refused awarrantless entry into his residence by municipalofficers who wanted to make a routine annualinspection of premises for possible violations of theSan Francisco House Code. The decision held thatthere was no probable cause to sustain the search andno urgency about it either to justify the inspectionwithout first obtaining a search warrant.
8/2/2019 Properties Subject to Seizure
29/33
g. Where prohibited articles are in
plain view.
Objects in the plain view of an officer who has
the right to be in the position to have that
view are subject to seizure and may be
presented as evidence. The plain viewdoctrine is usually applied where the police
officer is not searching for evidence against
the accused, but nonetheless inadvertentlycomes upon an incriminating object. (People
v. Musa, 217 SCRA 597
8/2/2019 Properties Subject to Seizure
30/33
Requisites:
A prior valid intrusion based on the valid
warrantless arrest in which the police arelegally present in the pursuit of their officialduties;
The evidence was inadvertently discovered bythe police who have the right to be wherethey are;
The evidence must be immediately apparent;
plain view justified the seizure of theevidence without further search.
h h
8/2/2019 Properties Subject to Seizure
31/33
h. Search and seizure under exigent
and emergency circumstances.
Illustration:
People v. de Garcia (233 SCRA 716). TheSupreme Court ruled that the raid of and the
subsequent seizure of firearms and
ammunition in the Eurocar Sales Office at
the height of the December 1989 coup detat
was held valid, considering the exigent and
emergency situation obtaining.
8/2/2019 Properties Subject to Seizure
32/33
PRIVACY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND
CORRESPONDENCE
Article III, Section 3 (1).
The privacy of communication and
correspondence shall be inviolable except upon
lawful order of the court, or when public safety
or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by
law.
The guarantee includes within the mantle of its
protection tangible, as well as intangible, objects.
8/2/2019 Properties Subject to Seizure
33/33
Illustration:
Ramirez v. Court of Appeals (248 SCRA 590). It washeld that R.A. 4200, otherwise known as the Anti-Wire
Tapping Act, clearly and unequivocally makes it illegalfor any person, not authorized by all the parties to anyprivate communication, to secretly record suchcommunications by means of a tape recorder. The law
does not make any distinction. Gaanan v. Intermediate Appellate Court (145 SCRA
112). It was held that a telephone extension was notamong the devices covered by RA 4200.
The right may be invoked against the wife who went tothe clinic of her husband and there took documentsconsisting of private communications between herhusband and his alleged paramour. (Zulueta v. Court
of Appeals 253 SCRA 699)