Arrest, Search and Seizure (a-e)

7/18/2019 Arrest, Search and Seizure (a-e)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/arrest-search-and-seizure-a-e 1/39

III-ARREST, SEARCH AND SEIZURE

A. When is serach Valid?

Peple Esca!" 323 SCRA 754

#ACTS$ During a checkpoint, a police saw a frearm on the lap o the accuse! As aresult, other passengers were searche an all frearms were sei"e!

ISSUE$ #hether o not checkpoints are illegal$

HE%D$ N". As long as the %ehicle is neither searche nor its occupants su&'ecte to a&o( search, an the inspection is limite to a %isual search, such routine checks cannot&e regare as %iolati%e o the right against unreasona&le search!

Val&"n'e s. de Villa

#ACTS$ )n 2* +anuar( -.7, the /ational Capital Region District Comman 0/CRDC1 wasacti%ate pursuant to etter o nstruction *2.7 o the hilippine 6eneral ea8uarters,A9, with the mission o conucting securit( operations within its area o responsi&ilit(an peripheral areas, or the purpose o esta&lishing an e:ecti%e territorial eense,maintaining peace an orer, an pro%iing an atmosphere conuci%e to the social,economic an political e%elopment o the /ational Capital Region! As part o its ut(to maintain peace an orer, the /CRDC installe checkpoints in %arious parts o;alen"uela, <etro <anila! Ricaro C! ;almonte an the =nion o aw(ers an A%ocatesor eople>s Right 0=A1 fle a petition or prohi&ition with preliminar( in'unction anortemporar( restraining orer witht the Supreme Court, seeking the eclaration ocheckpoints in ;alen"uela, <etro <anila or elsewhere, as unconstitutional an theismantling an &anning o the same or, in the alternati%e, to irect the responents toormulate guielines in the implementation o checkpoints, or the protection o thepeople! ?he( a%er that, &ecause o the installation o sai checkpoints, the resients o;alen"uela are worrie o &eing harasse an o their saet( &eing place at thear&itrar(, capricious an whimsical isposition o the militar( manning the checkpoints,consiering that their cars an %ehicles are &eing su&'ecte to regular searches ancheck@ups, especiall( at night or at awn, without the &eneft o a search warrant anorcourt orer! ?heir allege ear or their saet( increase when, at awn o - +ul( -..,en'amin arpon, a suppl( oBcer o the <unicipalit( o ;alen"uela, ulacan, was gunneown allegel( in col &loo &( the mem&ers o the /CRDC manning the checkpoint



along <cArthur ighwa( at <alinta, ;alen"uela, or ignoring anor reusing to su&mithimsel to the checkpoint an or continuing to spee o: inspire o warning shots fre inthe air! ;almonte also claims that, on se%eral occasions, he ha gone thru thesecheckpoints where he was stoppe an his car su&'ecte to searchcheck@up without acourt orer or search warrant! ?he( urther conten that the sai checkpoints gi%e 6en!Renato e ;illa an the /ational Capital Region District Comman a &lanket authorit( tomake searches anor sei"ures without search warrant or court orer in %iolation o theConstitution! n the Supreme Court>s ecision ate 2- Septem&er -.-, ;almontes an

=As petition or prohi&ition, seeking the eclaration o the checkpoints asunconstitutional an their ismantling anor &anning, was ismisse! ;almonte an=A fle the motion an supplemental motion or reconsieration o sai ecision!

ISSUE$ #hether checkpoints ser%e as a &lanket authorit( or go%ernment oBcials orwarrantless search an sei"ure an, thus, are %iolati%e o the Constitution!

HE%D$ /owhere in the Supreme Court>s ecision o 24 <a( --* i the Court legali"eall checkpoints, i!e! at all times an uner all circumstances! #hat the Court eclare is,that checkpoints are not illegal per se! ?hus, uner eceptional circumstances, as wherethe sur%i%al o organi"e go%ernment is on the &alance, or where the li%es an saet( o

the people are in gra%e peril, checkpoints ma( &e allowe an installe &( thego%ernment! mplicit in this proposition is, that when the situation clears an such gra%eperils are remo%e, checkpoints will ha%e a&solutel( no reason to remain! Recent an on@going e%ents ha%e pointe to the continuing %aliit( an nee or checkpoints manne&( either militar( or police orces! Although no one can &e compelle, uner ourli&ertarian s(stem, to share with the present go%ernment its ieological &elies anpractices, or commen its political, social an economic policies or perormanceE onemust concee to it the &asic right to een itsel rom its enemies an, while in powerto pursue its program o go%ernment intene or pu&lic welareE an in the pursuit othose o&'ecti%es, the go%ernment has the e8ual right, uner its police power, to selectthe reasona&le means an methos or &est achie%ing them! ?he checkpoint is e%ientl(one o such means it has selecte! Amittel(, the routine checkpoint stop oes intrueto a certain etent, on motorist>s right to Free passage without interruptionF, &ut itcannot &e enie that, as a rule, it in%ol%es onl( a &rie etention o tra%ellers uringwhich the %ehicle>s occupants are re8uire to answer a &rie 8uestion or two! 9or as longas the %ehicle is neither searche nor its occupants su&'ecte to a &o( search, an theinspection o the %ehicle is limite to a %isual search, sai routine checks cannot &eregare as %iolati%e o an ini%iual>s right against unreasona&le search! ?hese routinechecks, when conucte in a fe area, are e%en less intrusi%e! 9urther, %ehicles aregenerall( allowe to pass these checkpoints ater a routine inspection an a ew8uestions! %ehicles are stoppe an etensi%el( searche, it is &ecause o somepro&a&le cause which 'ustifes a reasona&le &elie o the men at the checkpoints thateither the motorist is a law@o:ener or the contents o the %ehicle are or ha%e &eeninstruments o some o:ense! ( the same token, a warrantless search o incoming anoutgoing passengers, at the arri%al an eparture areas o an international airport, is apractice not constitutionall( o&'ectiona&le &ecause it is oune on pu&lic interestsaet(, an necessit(! astl(, the Court>s ecision on checkpoints oes not, in an( wa(,%aliate nor conone a&uses committe &( the militar( manning the checkpoints! ?heCourt>s ecision was concerne with power, i!e! whether the go%ernment emplo(ing themilitar( has the power to install sai checkpoints! )nce that power is acknowlege, theCourt>s in8uir( ceases! ?rue, power implies the possi&ilit( o its a&use! ut whether thereis a&use in a particular situation is a i:erent F&all gameF to &e resol%e in the



constitutional arena! n an( situation, where a&use marks the operation o a checkpoint,the citi"en is not helpless! 9or the militar( is not a&o%e &ut su&'ect to the law! An thecourts eist to see that the law is supreme! Soliers, incluing those who mancheckpoints, who a&use their authorit( act &e(on the scope o their authorit( an are,thereore, lia&le criminall( an ci%ill( or their a&usi%e acts

()an*"n . De Villa

#ACTS$ ?he militar( an police oBcers conucte GAreal ?arget HoningsI or Gsaturationri%esI in

<etro <anila, specifcall( on places where the su&%ersi%es, as pinpointe &( saiauthorities, were hiing! During these saturation ri%es, police an militar( units coronan area o more than one resience an sometimes the whole &aranga( or areas o&aranga(s, without an( search warrant or warrant o arrest! etitioners claime that saisaturation ri%es ollowe a common pattern o human rights a&uses, as such, sought orits stoppage! ?he petitioners, who are o legal age, &ona fe resients o <etro <anilaan tapa(ers an leaers in their respecti%e communities, sought to prohi&it themilitar( an police oBcers rom conucting GAreal ?arget HoningsI or Gsaturation ri%esI

in <etro <anila!

etitioners claim that on %arious ates rom <arch 5, -.7 till /o%em&er 3 o the same(ear, %arious saturation ri%es were conucte &( the responents! Ae

&( the petitioners, that these Gsaturation ri%esI are in critical areas pinpointe &

( the militar( an police as places where the su&%ersi%es are hiing! ?he arrests rangerom 7 persons 0+ul( 2*, ankusa(, ?ono1 to ,5** 0/o%em&er 3, ower <arica&an,asa( Cit(1 an that same ollowe a common pattern o human rights a&uses like policean militar( units, without an( search warrant or warrant o arrest, coron an area omore than one resience an sometimes whole &aranga( or areas o &aranga( in <etro<anila, rom the ea o the night or earl( morning hours an resients are here ascows with men orere to strip own to their &ries an eamine or tattoo marks another imagine marks!

ISSUE$ Whe'her "r n"' 'he search is alid

HE%D$ ?here appears to ha%e &een no impeiment to securing search warrants orwarrants o arrest &eore an( houses were searche or ini%iuals rouse rom sleepwere arreste! ?here is no strong showing that the o&'ecti%es sought to &e attaine &(the Gareal "oningI coul not &e achie%e as the rights o the s8uatter an low incomeamilies are ull( protecte! #here a %iolation o human rights specifcall( guarantee &(the Constitution is in%ol%e, it is the ut( o the court to stop the transgression an statewhere e%en the awesome power o the state ma( not encroach upon the rights o theini%iual!

#here there is large scale mutin( or actual re&ellion, the police or militar( ma( go inorce to the com&at areas, enter a:ecte resiences or &uilings, roun up suspecte



re&els an otherwise 8uell the mutin( or re&ellion without ha%ing to secure searchwarrants an without %iolating the ill o Rights!

B. Purpose and Importance of the Guaranty

Aler" s. Di*"n

#ACTS$ )n 2 9e&ruar( -45, while the &attle or <anila was raging, soliers o the=nite States Arm(, accompanie &( men o 9ilipino 6uerrilla 9orces, place Aurelio S!Al%ero uner arrest, ha%ing &een suspecte o colla&oration with the enem(, an sei"ean took certain papers rom his house in asa(, Ri"al! )n or a&out 4 )cto&er -45,Al%ero was accuse o treason, in criminal case 3 o the eople>s CourtE ater which, on Decem&er -45, he fle a petition, emaning the return o the papers allegel( sei"ean taken rom his house! Al%ero also fle a petition or &ail, at the hearing o which theprosecution presente certain papers an ocuments, which were amitte as part o its

e%ience, an sai petition was enie! At the trial o the case on the merits, theprosecution again presente sai papers an ocuments, which were amitte as part oits e%ience, an were marke as ehi&its! )n 2J 9e&ruar( -4J, the 'uges issue anorer en(ing the petition or the return o the ocuments, an amitte as competente%ience the ocuments presente &( the prosecution! )n the same ate that sai orerwas issue, en(ing the petition or the return o sai ocuments, Al%ero aske or thereconsieration o sai orer, which was also enie! Al%ero fle a petition or certiorariwith in'unction with the Supreme Court!

ISSUE$ #hether the ocuments sei"e &( =nite States Arm( personnel at Al%eroshome can &e use as e%ience against the latter!

HE%D$ ?he right o oBcers an men o the =nite States Arm( to arrest Al%ero, as acolla&orationist suspect, an to sei"e his personal papers, without an( search warrant, inthe "one o militar( operations, is un8uestiona&le, uner the pro%isions o article 4Chapter , Section , o the Regulations relati%e to the aws an Customs o #ar on ano the ague Con%entions o -*7, authori"ing the sei"ure o militar( papers in thepossession o prisoners o warE an also uner the proclamation, ate 2- Decem&er-44, issue &( 6en! Douglas <acArthur, as Commaner in Chie o the =nite StatesArm(, eclaring his purpose to remo%e certain citi"ens o the hilippines, who ha%oluntaril( gi%en ai an comort to the enem(, in %iolation o the allegiance ue the6o%ernments o the =nite States an the Commonwealth o the hilippines, whenapprehene, rom an( position o political an economic inKuence in the hilippines anto hol them in restraint or the uration o the war! ?he purpose o the constitutionapro%isions against unlawul searches an sei"ures is to pre%ent %iolations o pri%atesecurit( in person an propert(, an unlawul in%asions o the sanctit( o the home, &(oBcers o the law acting uner legislati%e or 'uicial sanction, an to gi%e reme(against such usurpations when attempte! ut it oes not prohi&it the 6o%ernment rom



taking a%antage o unlawul searches mae &( a pri%ate person or uner authorit( ostate law! erein, as the soliers o the =nite States Arm(, that took an sei"e certainpapers an ocuments rom the resience o Al%ero, were not acting as agents or on&ehal o the 6o%ernment o the Commonwealth o the hilippinesE an that thosepapers an ocuments came into the possession o the authorities o the Commonwealth6o%ernment, through the )Bce o the CC o the =nite States Arm( in <anila, the usean presentation o sai papers an ocuments, as e%ience or the prosecution againstAl%ero, at the trial o his case or treason, &eore the eople>s Court, cannot now &e

legall( attacke, on the groun o unlawul or unreasona&le searches an sei"ures, or onan( other constitutional groun, as eclare &( the Supreme Court o the =nite Statesin similar cases!

C. T" +h"& direc'ed?

Pe"ple s. Andre ar'i

#ACTS$ )n 4 August -.7, Anre <arti an his common@law wie, Shirle( Re(es, wentto the &ooth o the <anila acking an Lport 9orwarers in the istang ilipino Comple,Lrmita, <anila, carr(ing with them 4 git@wrappe packages! Anita Re(es 0theproprietress an no relation to Shirle( Re(es1 attene to them! <arti inorme AnitaRe(es that he was sening the packages to a rien in Hurich, Swit"erlan! <arti flle upthe contract necessar( or the transaction, writing therein his name, passport num&er,the ate o shipment an the name an aress o the consignee, namel(, F#A?LR9LRH, <attacketr , .*52 Hurich, Swit"erlan!F Anita Re(es i not inspect the packagesas <arti reuse, who assure the ormer that the packages simpl( containe &ookscigars, an glo%es an were gits to his rien in Hurich! n %iew o <arti>s representation,the 4 packages were then place insie a &rown corrugate &o, with st(ro@oam placeat the &ottom an on top o the packages, an seale with masking tape! eore eli%er(o <arti>s &o to the ureau o Customs anor ureau o osts, <r! +o& Re(es 0proprietor1an hus&an o Anita 0Re(es1, ollowing stanar operating proceure, opene the &oesor fnal inspection, where a peculiar oor emitte thererom! +o& pulle out a cellophanewrapper protruing rom the opening o one o the glo%es, an took se%eral grams o thecontents thereo! +o& Re(es orthwith prepare a letter reporting the shipment to the /an re8uesting a la&orator( eamination o the samples he etracte rom thecellophane wrapper! At the /arcotics Section o the /ational ureau o n%estigation0/1, the &o containing <arti>s packages was opene, (ieling rie mari'uana lea%esor cake@like 0&ricks1 rie mari'uana lea%es! ?he / agents mae an in%entor( an tookcharge o the &o an o the contents thereo, ater signing a FReceiptF acknowlegingcusto( o the sai e:ects! ?hereupon, the / agents trie to locate <arti &ut to noa%ail, inasmuch as the latter>s state aress was the <anila Central ost )Bce ?hereater, an normation was fle against <arti or %iolation o RA J425, otherwiseknown as the Dangerous Drugs Act! Ater trial, the Special Criminal Court o <anila0Regional ?rial Court, ranch MM1 renere the ecision, con%icting <arti o %iolation o



Section 2 0&1, Article ; in relation to Section 4, Article an Section 2 0e10i1, Article o Repu&lic Act J425, as amene, otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act! <artiappeale!

ISSUE$ #hether an act o a pri%ate ini%iual, allegel( in %iolation o the accuse>sconstitutional rights, &e in%oke against the State!

HE%D$ n the a&sence o go%ernmental intererence, the li&erties guarantee &( theConstitution cannot &e in%oke against the State! ?he contra&an herein, ha%ing comeinto possession o the 6o%ernment without the latter transgressing the accuse>s rightsagainst unreasona&le search an sei"ure, the Court sees no cogent reason wh( the sameshoul not &e amitte against him in the prosecution o the o:ense charge! ?he merepresence o the / agents i not con%ert the reasona&le search e:ecte &( Re(es intoa warrantless search an sei"ure proscri&e &( the Constitution! <erel( to o&ser%e anlook at that which is in plain sight is not a search! a%ing o&ser%e that which is open,

where no trespass has &een committe in ai thereo, is not search! #here thecontra&an articles are ientife without a trespass on the part o the arresting oBcerthere is not the search that is prohi&ite &( the constitution! ?he constitutionaproscription against unlawul searches an sei"ures thereore applies as a restraintirecte onl( against the go%ernment an its agencies taske with the enorcement othe law! ?hus, it coul onl( &e in%oke against the State to whom the restraint againstar&itrar( an unreasona&le eercise o power is impose! the search is mae upon there8uest o law enorcers, a warrant must generall( &e frst secure i it is to pass the testo constitutionalit(! owe%er, i the search is mae at the &ehest or initiati%e o theproprietor o a pri%ate esta&lishment or its own an pri%ate purposes, as in the case at&ar, an without the inter%ention o police authorities, the right against unreasona&le

search an sei"ure cannot &e in%oke or onl( the act o pri%ate ini%iual, not the lawenorcers, is in%ol%e! n sum, the protection against unreasona&le searches an sei"urescannot &e etene to acts committe &( pri%ate ini%iuals so as to &ring it within theam&it o allege unlawul intrusion &( the go%ernment!

D. Wh" can in"e 'he rih'?

/ache 0 C". 1Phil.2 Inc. s. R)i*

#ACTS$ )n 24 9e&ruar( -7*, <isael ! ;era, Commissioner o nternal Re%enue, wrote aletter aresse to +uge ;i%encio <! Rui" re8uesting the issuance o a search warrantagainst ache N Co! 0hil!1, nc! an 9reerick L! Seggerman or %iolation o Section 4J0a1o the /ational nternal Re%enue Coe 0/RC1, in relation to all other pertinent pro%isionsthereo, particularl( Sections 53, 72, 73, 2*. an 2*-, an authori"ing Re%enueLaminer Roolo e eon to make an fle the application or search warrant which wasattache to the letter! n the aternoon o the ollowing a(, De eon an his witness,Arturo ogronio, went to the Court o 9irst nstance 0C91 o Ri"al! ?he( &rought with them



the ollowing papersO ;era>s letter@re8uestE an application or search warrant alrea(flle up &ut still unsigne &( De eonE an aBa%it o ogronio su&scri&e &eore DeeonE a eposition in printe orm o ogronio alrea( accomplishe an signe &( him&ut not (et su&scri&eE an a search warrant alrea( accomplishe &ut still unsigne &( +uge! At that time the +uge was hearing a certain caseE so, &( means o a note, heinstructe his Deput( Clerk o Court to take the epositions o De eon an ogronio!Ater the session ha a'ourne, the +uge was inorme that the epositions haalrea( &een taken! ?he stenographer, upon re8uest o the +uge, rea to him her

stenographic notesE an thereater, the +uge aske ogronio to take the oath anwarne him that i his eposition was oun to &e alse an without legal &asis, he coul&e charge or per'ur(! ?he +uge signe e eon>s application or search warrant anogronio>s eposition! Search #arrant 2@<@7* was then signe &( +uge an accoringl(issue! 3 a(s later 0a Satura(1, the R agents ser%e the search warrant to thecorporation an Seggerman at the oBces o the corporation on A(ala A%enue, <akati,Ri"al! ?he corporation>s law(ers proteste the search on the groun that no ormacomplaint or transcript o testimon( was attache to the warrant! ?he agentsne%ertheless proceee with their search which (iele J &oes o ocuments! )n 3<arch -7*, the corporation an Seggerman fle a petition with the Court o 9irstnstance 0C91 o Ri"al pra(ing that the search warrant &e 8uashe, issol%e or recalle

that preliminar( prohi&itor( an manator( writs o in'unction &e issue, that the searchwarrant &e eclare null an %oi, an that ;era, ogronio, e eon, et! al!, &e orere topa( the corporation an Seggerman, 'ointl( an se%erall(, amages an attorne(>s eesAter hearing an on 2- +ul( -7*, the court issue an orer ismissing the petition orissolution o the search warrant! n the meantime, or on J April -7*, the ureau onternal Re%enue mae ta assessments on the corporation in the total sum o2,5-4,72-!-7, partl(, i not entirel(, &ase on the ocuments thus sei"e! ?hecorporation an Seggerman fle an action or certiorari, prohi&ition, an manamus!

ISSUE$ #hether the corporation has the right to contest the legalit( o the sei"ure oocuments rom its oBce!

HE%D$ ?he legalit( o a sei"ure can &e conteste onl( &( the part( whose rights ha%e&een impaire there&(, an that the o&'ection to an unlawul search an sei"ure is purel(personal an cannot &e a%aile o &( thir parties! n Stonehill, et al! %s! Diokno, et al!06R @-55*, - +une -J7E 2* SCRA 3.31 the Supreme Court impliel( recogni"e theright o a corporation to o&'ect against unreasona&le searches an sei"uresE holing thatthe corporations ha%e their respecti%e personalities, separate an istinct rom thepersonalit( o the corporate oBcers, regarless o the amount o shares o stock or theinterest o each o them in sai corporations, whate%er, the oBces the( hol therein ma(&eE an that the corporate oBcers thereore ma( not %alil( o&'ect to the use ine%ience against them o the ocuments, papers an things sei"e rom the oBces anpremises o the corporations, since the right to o&'ect to the amission o sai papers ine%ience &elongs eclusi%el( to the corporations, to whom the sei"e e:ects &elong, anma( not &e in%oke &( the corporate oBcers in proceeings against them in theirini%iual capacit(! ?he istinction &etween the Stonehill case an the present case isthatO in the ormer case, onl( the oBcers o the %arious corporations in whose oBcesocuments, papers an e:ects were searche an sei"e were the petitionersE while in



the latter, the corporation to whom the sei"e ocuments &elong, an whose rights ha%ethere&( &een impaire, is itsel a petitioner! )n that score, the corporation herein stanson a i:erent ooting rom the corporations in Stonehill! <oreo%er, herein, the searchwarrant was %oi inasmuch as 9irst, there was no personal eamination conucte &( the +uge o the complainant 0De eon1 an his witness 0ogronio1! ?he +uge i not askeither o the two an( 8uestion the answer to which coul possi&l( &e the &asis oretermining whether or not there was pro&a&le cause against ache N Co! anSeggerman! ?he participation o the +uge in the proceeings which le to the issuance

o Search #arrant 2@<@7* was thus limite to listening to the stenographer>s reaings oher notes, to a ew wors o warning against the commission o per'ur(, an toaministering the oath to the complainant an his witness! ?his cannot &e consier apersonal eamination! Secon, the search warrant was issue or more than one specifco:ense! ?he search warrant was issue or at least 4 istinct o:enses uner the ?aCoe! ?he frst is the %iolation o Section 4J0a1, Section 72 an Section 73 0the fling oincome ta returns1, which are interrelate! ?he secon is the %iolation o Section 530withholing o income taes at source1! ?he thir is the %iolation o Section 2*.0unlawul pursuit o &usiness or occupation1E an the ourth is the %iolation o Section2*- 0ailure to make a return o receipts, sales, &usiness or gross %alue o output actuall(remo%e or to pa( the ta ue thereon1! L%en in their classifcation the J pro%isions are

em&race in 2 i:erent titlesO Sections 4J0a1, 53, 72 an 73 are uner ?itle 0ncome ?a1E while Sections 2*. an 2*- are uner ?itle ; 0ri%ilege ?a on usiness an)ccupation1! astl(, the search warrant oes not particularl( escri&e the things to &esei"e! Search #arrant /o! 2@<@7* tens to eeat the ma'or o&'ecti%e o the ill oRights, i!e!, the elimination o general warrants, or the language use therein is so all@em&racing as to inclue all concei%a&le recors o the corporation, which, i sei"e, coulpossi&l( rener its &usiness inoperati%e! ?hus, Search #arrant 2@<@7* is null an %oi!

S'"nehill s. Di"n"

#ACTS$ =pon application o the oBcers o the go%ernment, Special rosecutors ero D!Cen"on, Lren ! lana an <anuel ;illareal +r! an Assistant 9iscal <anases 6! Re(esE +uge Amao Roan 0<unicipal Court o <anila1, +uge Roman Cansino 0<unicipal Court o<anila1, +uge ermogenes Caluag 0Court o 9irst nstance o Ri"al@Pue"on Cit( ranch1,an +uge Damian +imene" 0<unicipal Court o Pue"on Cit(1 issue, on i:erent ates, atotal o 42 search warrants against arr( S! Stonehill, Ro&ert ! rooks, +ohn +! rooks,an Qarl eck, anor the corporations o which the( were oBcers, irecte to an( peaceoBcer, to search the sai persons anor the premises o their oBces, warehousesanor resiences, an to sei"e an take possession o the ollowing personal propert( towitO Fooks o accounts, fnancial recors, %ouchers, corresponence, receipts, legers 'ournals, portolios, creit 'ournals, t(pewriters, an other ocuments anor papersshowing all &usiness transactions incluing is&ursements receipts, &alance sheets anproft an loss statements an o&&ins 0cigarette wrappers1F as Fthe su&'ect o theo:enseE stolen or em&e""le an procees or ruits o the o:ense,F or Fuse or inteneto &e use as the means o committing the o:ense,F which is escri&e in theapplications a%erte to a&o%e as F%iolation o Central ank aws, ?ari: an Customsaws, nternal Re%enue 0Coe1 an the Re%ise enal Coe!F Alleging that the searchwarrants are null an %oi, as contra%ening the Constitution an the Rules o Court,



Stonehill, et! al! fle with the Supreme Court the original action or certiorari, prohi&ition,manamus an in'unction! )n 22 <arch -J2, the Supreme Court issue the writ opreliminar( in'unction pra(e or in the petition! owe%er, &( resolution ate 2- +une-J2, the writ was partiall( lite or issol%e, insoar as the papers, ocuments anthings sei"e rom the oBces o the corporations are concerneE &ut, the in'unction wasmaintaine as regars the papers, ocuments an things oun an sei"e in theresiences o Stonehill, et! al!

ISSUE$ #hether Stonehill, et! al! can assail the legalit( o the conteste warrants thatallowe sei"ure o ocuments, papers an other e:ects in the corporate oBces, another places &esies their resiences!

HE%D$ Stonehill, et! al! maintaine that the search warrants are in the nature o generalwarrants an that, accoringl(, the sei"ures e:ecte upon the authorit( thereo are nulan %oi! /o warrant shall issue &ut upon pro&a&le cause, to &e etermine &( the 'uge

in the manner set orth in sai pro%isionE an the warrant shall particularl( escri&e thethings to &e sei"e! /one o these re8uirements has &een complie with in the contestewarrants! ?he gra%e %iolation o the Constitution mae in the application or theconteste search warrants was compoune &( the escription therein mae o thee:ects to &e searche or an sei"e! ?he warrants authori"e the search or an sei"ureo recors pertaining to all &usiness transactions o Stonehill, et! al!, regarless owhether the transactions were legal or illegal! ?he warrants sanctione the sei"ure o alrecors o the corporate oBcers an the corporations, whate%er their nature, thus openl(contra%ening the eplicit comman o our ill o Rights that the things to &e sei"e &eparticularl( escri&e as well as tening to eeat its ma'or o&'ecti%eO the eliminationo general warrants! owe%er, the ocuments, papers, an things sei"e uner theallege authorit( o the warrants in 8uestion ma( &e split into 021 ma'or groups, namel(0a1 those oun an sei"e in the oBces o the corporations an 0&1 those oun sei"e inthe resiences o Stonehill, et! al! As regars the frst group, Stonehill, et! al! ha%e nocause o action to assail the legalit( o the conteste warrants an o the sei"ures maein pursuance thereo, or the simple reason that sai corporations ha%e their respecti%epersonalities, separate an istinct rom the personalit( o Stonehill, et! al!, regarless othe amount o shares o stock or o the interest o each o them in sai corporations, anwhate%er the oBces the( hol therein ma( &e! nee, it is well settle that the legalit(o a sei"ure can &e conteste onl( &( the part( whose rights ha%e &een impairethere&(, an that the o&'ection to an unlawul search an sei"ure is purel( personal ancannot &e a%aile o &( thir parties! Conse8uentl(, Stonehill, et! al! ma( not %alil(o&'ect to the use in e%ience against them o the ocuments, papers an things sei"erom the oBces an premises o the corporations a%erte to a&o%e, since the right too&'ect to the amission o sai papers in e%ience &elongs eclusi%el( to thecorporations, to whom the sei"e e:ects &elong, an ma( not &e in%oke &( thecorporate oBcers in proceeings against them in their ini%iual capacit(! #ith respectto the ocuments, papers an things sei"e in the resiences o Stonehill, et! al!, the 2- +une -J2 Resolution o the Supreme Court, en(ing the liting o the writ o preliminar(in'unction pre%iousl( issue &( the Court on the ocuments, papers an things sei"e inthe resiences, in e:ect, restraine the prosecutors rom using them in e%ience againstStonehill, et! al! ?hus, the Court hel that the warrants or the search o 3 resiences are



null an %oiE that the searches an sei"ures therein mae are illegalE that the writ opreliminar( in'unction heretoore issue, in connection with the ocuments, papers another e:ects thus sei"e in sai resiences is mae permanent, that the writs pra(e orare grante, insoar as the ocuments, papers an other e:ects so sei"e in theresiences are concerneE an that the petition herein is ismisse an the writs pra(eor enie, as regars the ocuments, papers an other e:ects sei"e in the 2- places,oBces an other premises!

E. C"ndi'i"ns 3"r a alid +arran'

Existence of probable cause

HU/ERT 4. P. WE//, VS. H5N5RA/%ERAU% E. DE %E5N

#ACTS$)n +une -, --4, the /ational ureau o n%estigation 0/1 fle with theDepartment o +ustice a letter@complaint charging petitioners u&ert #e&&,<ichae6atchalian, Antonio +! e'ano an si 0J1 other persons with the crime o Rape anomicie o Carmela /!;i"cone, her mother Lstrellita /icolas@;i"cone, an her sisterAnne <arie +ennier in their home at /um&er .* #!;in"ons, St!, 9 omes arana8ue,<etro<anila on +une 3*, --!9orthwith, the Department o +usticeorme a panel oprosecutors heae &(Assistant Chie State rosecutor +o%encioR! Huno to conuct thepreliminar( in%estigation! etitioners ault the D)+ anel or its fning o pro&a&le cause! ?he( assail the crei&ilit( o +essica Alaro as inherentl( weak an uncorro&orate ue tothe inconsistencies &etween her April 2.,--5 an <a( 22, --5 sworn statements! ?he(critici"e the proceure ollowe &( the D)+ anel when it i not eamine witnesses toclari( the allege inconsistencies!etitioners charge that responent +uge Raul e eonan, later, responent +uge Amelita ?olentino issue warrants o arrest against themwithout conucting the re8uire preliminar( eamination! etitioners complain a&out theenial o their constitutional right to ue process an %iolation o their right to animpartial in%estigation! ?he( also assail the pre'uicial pu&licit( that attene theirpreliminar( in%estigation!

ISSUE$ #hether or not the D)+ anel likewise gra%el( a&use its iscretion in holingthat there is pro&a&le cause to charge them with the crime o rape an homicie!

HE%D$ N5. ?he Court rule that the D)+ anel i not gra%el( a&use its iscretion whenit oun pro&a&le cause against the petitioners! A pro&a&le cause nees onl(to rest one%ience showing that more likel( than not, a crime has &een committe an wascommitte &( the suspects! ro&a&le cause nee not &e &ase on clear an con%incinge%ience o guilt, neither on e%ience esta&lishing guilt &e(on reasona&le ou&t anefnitel(, not on e%ience esta&lishing a&solute certaint( o guilt!

Alare* s. C")r' "3 #irs' nstance o ?a(a&as 6R 4535., 2- +anuar( -37T 9irstDi%ision, mperial 0+1O 4 concur



#ACTS$ )n 3 +une -3J, the chie o the secret ser%ice o the Anti@=sur( oar, o theDepartment o +ustice, presente to +uge Luaro 6utierre" Da%i then presiing o%erthe Court o 9irst nstance o ?a(a&as, an aBa%it alleging that accoring to relia&leinormation, /arciso Al%are" kept in his house in nanta, ?a(a&as, &ooks, ocumentsreceipts, lists, chits an other papers use &( him in connection with his acti%ities as amone(lener, charging usurious rates o interest in %iolation o the law! n his oath at theen o the aBa%it, the chie o the secret ser%ice state that his answers to the8uestions were correct to the &est o his knowlege an &elie! e i not swear to the

truth o his statements upon his own knowlege o the acts &ut upon the inormationrecei%e &( him rom a relia&le person! =pon the aBa%it the 'uge, on sai ate, issuethe warrant which is the su&'ect matter o the petition, orering the search o theAl%are">s house at an( time o the a( or night, the sei"ure o the &ooks an ocumentsan the immeiate eli%er( thereo to him to &e ispose o in accorance with the law!#ith sai warrant, se%eral agents o the Anti@=sur( oar entere Al%are">s store anresience at 7O** p!m! o 4 +une -3J, an sei"e an took possession o the ollowingarticlesO internal re%enue licenses or the (ears -33 to -3J, leger, 2 'ournals, 2cash&ooks, - orer &ooks, 4 note&ooks, 4 check stu&s, 2 memoranums, 3 &ank&ooks, 2contracts, 4 stu&s, 4. stu&s o purchases o copra, 2 in%entories, 2 &unles o &ills olaing, &unle o creit receipts, &unle o stu&s o purchases o copra, 2 packages o

corresponence, receipt &ook &elonging to uis 9ernane", 4 &unles o in%oices another papers, man( ocuments an loan contracts with securit( an promissor( notes,5*4 chits, promissor( notes an stu&s o use checks o the ongkong N Shanghaanking Corporation 0SC1! ?he search or an sei"ure o sai articles were mae withthe opposition o Al%are" who state his protest &elow the in%entories on the groun thatthe agents sei"e e%en the originals o the ocuments! As the articles ha not &een&rought immeiatel( to the 'uge who issue the search warrant, Al%are", through hisattorne(, fle a motion on . +une -3J, pra(ing that the agent Lmilio ! Siongco, or an(other agent, &e orere immeiatel( to eposit all the sei"e articles in the oBce o theclerk o court an that sai agent &e eclare guilt( o contempt or ha%ing iso&e(ethe orer o the court! )n sai ate the court issue an orer irecting Siongco toeposit all the articles sei"e within 24 hours rom the receipt o notice thereo angi%ing him a perio o 5 a(s within which to show cause wh( he shoul not &e punisheor contempt o court! )n * +une, Attorne( Arsenio Rorigue", representing the Anti@=sur( oar, fle a motion pra(ing that the orer o the .th o sai month &e set asiean that the Anti@=sur( oar &e authori"e to retain the articles sei"e or a perio o3* a(s or the necessar( in%estigation! )n +une 25, the court issue an orer re8uiringagent Siongco orthwith to fle the search warrant an the aBa%it in the court, togetherwith the proceeings taken &( him, an to present an in%entor( ul( %erife &( oath oall the articles sei"e! )n +ul( 2, the attorne( or the petitioner fle a petition allegingthat the search warrant issue was illegal an that it ha not (et &een returne to atetogether with the proceeings taken in connection therewith, an pra(ing that saiwarrant &e cancelle, that an orer &e issue irecting the return o all the articlessei"e to Al%are", that the agent who sei"e them &e eclare guilt( o contempt ocourt, an that charges &e fle against him or a&use o authorit(! )n Septem&er *, thecourt issue an orer holingO that the search warrant was o&taine an issue inaccorance with the law, that it ha &een ul( complie with an, conse8uentl(, shoulnot &e cancelle, an that agent Siongco i not commit an( contempt o court anmust, thereore, &e eonerate, an orering the chie o the Anti@=sur( oar in <anilato show cause, i an(, within the uneteni&le perio o 2 a(s rom the ate o notice osai orer, wh( all the articles sei"e appearing in the in%entor( shoul not &e returneto Al%are"! ?he assistant chie o the Anti@=sur( oar o the Department o +ustice fle



a motion pra(ing, or the reasons state therein, that the articles sei"e &e orereretaine or the purpose o conucting an in%estigation o the %iolation o the Anti@=sur(aw committe &( Al%are"! )n )cto&er *, sai oBcial again fle another motionalleging that he neee J* a(s to eamine the ocuments an papers sei"e, which areesignate on pages to 4 o the in%entor( &( /os! 5, *, J, 23, 25@27, 3*@3 , 34, 3J@43 an 45, an pra(ing that he &e grante sai perio o J* a(s! n an orer o )cto&erJ, the court grante him the perio o J* a(s to in%estigate sai - ocuments!Al%are", herein, asks that the search warrant as well as the orer authori"ing the agents

o the Anti@=sur( oar to retain the articles sei"e, &e eclare illegal an set asie,an pra(s that all the articles in 8uestion &e returne to him!

ISSUE$ #hether the search warrant issue &( the court is illegal &ecause it has &een&ase upon the aBa%it o agent Almea in whose oath he eclare that he ha nopersonal knowlege o the acts which were to ser%e as a &asis or the issuance o thewarrant &ut that he ha knowlege thereo through mere inormation secure rom aperson whom he consiere relia&le, an that it is illegal as it was not supporte &(other aBa%its asie rom that mae &( the applicant!

HE%D$ Section , paragraph 3, o Article o the Constitution an Section -7 o 6enera

)rers 5. re8uire that there &e not onl( pro&a&le cause &eore the issuance o a searchwarrant &ut that the search warrant must &e &ase upon an application supporte &(oath o the applicant an the witnesses he ma( prouce! n its &roaest sense, an oathinclues an( orm o attestation &( which a part( signifes that he is &oun in conscienceto perorm an act aithull( an truthull(E an it is sometimes efne as an outwarplege gi%en &( the person taking it that his attestation or promise is mae uner animmeiate sense o his responsi&ilit( to 6o! ?he oath re8uire must reer to the truth othe acts within the personal knowlege o the petitioner or his witnesses, &ecause thepurpose thereo is to con%ince the committing magistrate, not the ini%iual making theaBa%it an seeking the issuance o the warrant, o the eistence o pro&a&le cause! ?hetrue test o suBcienc( o an aBa%it to warrant issuance o a search warrant is whetherit has &een rawn in such a manner that per'ur( coul &e charge thereon an aBant &ehel lia&le or amages cause! ?he aBa%it, which ser%e as the eclusi%e &asis o thesearch warrant, is insuBcient an atall( eecti%e &( reason o the manner in which theoath was mae, an thereore, the search warrant an the su&se8uent sei"ure o the&ooks, ocuments an other papers are illegal! 9urther, it is the practice in this 'urisiction to attach the aBa%it o at least the applicant or complainant to theapplication! t is amitte that the 'uge who issue the search warrant in this case,relie eclusi%el( upon the aBa%it mae &( agent Almea an that he i not re8uirenor take the eposition o an( other witness! /either the Constitution nor 6eneral )rers5. pro%ies that it is o imperati%e necessit( to take the epositions o the witnesses to&e presente &( the applicant or complainant in aition to the aBa%it o the latter! ?hepurpose o &oth in re8uiring the presentation o epositions is nothing more than tosatis( the committing magistrate o the eistence o pro&a&le cause! ?hereore, i theaBa%it o the applicant or complainant is suBcient, the 'uge ma( ispense with that oother witnesses! nasmuch as the aBa%it o the agent was insuBcient &ecause hisknowlege o the acts was not personal &ut merel( hearsa(, it is the ut( o the 'uge tore8uire the aBa%it o one or more witnesses or the purpose o etermining theeistence o pro&a&le cause to warrant the issuance o the search warrant! #hen theaBa%it o the applicant or complainant contains suBcient acts within his personal anirect knowlege, it is suBcient i the 'uge is satisfe that there eists pro&a&le causewhen the applicant>s knowlege o the acts is mere hearsa(, the aBa%it o one or more



witnesses ha%ing a personal knowlege o the acts is necessar(! ?hus the warrant issueis likewise illegal &ecause it was &ase onl( on the aBa%it o the agent who ha nopersonal knowlege o the acts!

/)r"s . Chie3 "3 S'a6

#ACTS$ )n 7 Decem&er -.2, +uge Lrnani Cru"@aUo, Lecuti%e +uge o the then C9Ri"al Pue"on Cit(T, issue 2 search warrants where the premises at -, Roa 3, ro'ectJ, Pue"on Cit(, an 7.4 =nits C N D, R<S uiling, Pue"on A%enue, Pue"on Cit(&usiness aresses o the F<etropolitan <ailF an F#e 9orumF newspapers, respecti%el(were searche, an oBce an printing machines, e8uipment, paraphernalia, motor%ehicles an other articles use in the printing, pu&lication an istri&ution o the sainewspapers, as well as numerous papers, ocuments, &ooks an other written literatureallege to &e in the possession an control o +ose urgos, +r! pu&lisher@eitor o the F#e9orumF newspaper, were sei"e! A petition or certiorari, prohi&ition an manamus withpreliminar( manator( an prohi&itor( in'unction was fle ater J months ollowing therai to 8uestion the %aliit( o sai search warrants, an to en'oin the +uge A%ocate

6eneral o the A9, the cit( fscal o Pue"on Cit(, et!al! rom using the articles sei"e ase%ience in Criminal Case P@ *227.2 o the R?C Pue"on Cit( 0eople %! urgos1!

ISSUE$ #hether allegations o possession an printing o su&%ersi%e materials ma( &ethe &asis o the issuance o search warrants!

HE%D$ Section 3 pro%ies that no search warrant or warrant o arrest shall issue eceptupon pro&a&le cause to &e etermine &( the 'uge, or such other responsi&le oBcer asma( &e authori"e &( law, ater eamination uner oath or aBrmation o thecomplainant an the witnesses he ma( prouce, an particularl( escri&ing the place to&e searche an the persons or things to &e sei"e! ro&a&le cause or a search isefne as such acts an circumstances which woul lea a reasona&l( iscreet anpruent man to &elie%e that an o:ense has &een committe an that the o&'ects soughtin connection with the o:ense are in the place sought to &e searche! n manating thatFno warrant shall issue ecept upon pro&a&le cause to &e etermine &( the 'uge, atereamination uner oath or aBrmation o the complainant an the witnesses he ma(prouceIE the Constitution re8uires no less than personal knowlege &( the complainantor his witnesses o the acts upon which the issuance o a search warrant ma( &e 'ustife! erein, a statement in the e:ect that urgos Fis in possession or has in hiscontrol printing e8uipment an other paraphernalia, news pu&lications an otherocuments which were use an are all continuousl( &eing use as a means ocommitting the o:ense o su&%ersion punisha&le uner D ..5, as ameneF is a mereconclusion o law an oes not satis( the re8uirements o pro&a&le cause! eret o suchparticulars as woul 'usti( a fning o the eistence o pro&a&le cause, sai allegationcannot ser%e as &asis or the issuance o a search warrant! 9urther, when the searchwarrant applie or is irecte against a newspaper pu&lisher or eitor in connection withthe pu&lication o su&%ersi%e materials, the application anor its supporting aBa%its



must contain a specifcation, stating with particularit( the allege su&%ersi%e material hehas pu&lishe or is intening to pu&lish! <ere generali"ation will not suBce!

C"rr" . %isin

#ACTS$ Corro is the pu&lisher an eitor o the hilippine ?imes, whose oBces were

su&'ecte to search an sei"ure o items an articles that were use an &eing use asinstruments an means o committing the crime o inciting to seition!

=pon application fle &( t! Col! erlin Castillo o the C@Criminal n%estigation Ser%ice,responent 0R?C +uge Lste&an ising1 issue a search warrant on Septem&er 2-, -.3,authori"ing the search an sei"ure oO 0a1 printe copies o hilippine ?imes, 0&1manuscriptsrats o articles or pu&lication in the hilippine ?imes, 0c1 newspaperummies o the hilippine ?imes, 01 su&%ersi%e ocuments, articles, printe mattershan&ills, leaKets, &anners, an 0e1 t(pewriters, uplicating machines, mimeographingan tape recoring machines, %ieo machines an tapes! Sai itemsarticles were usean &eing use as instrument an means o committing the crime o inciting to seition

0Article 421! )n /o%em&er J, -.4, petitioner fle an urgent motion to recall warrantan to return ocumentspersonal properties alleging, among others that sai sei"eproperties were not in an( wa( connecte with the o:ense o inciting to seition an thatthe ocumentspapers sei"e has &een renere moot an acaemic ue to the fningso the Agra%a oar ha%ing eclusi%e 'urisiction to etermine the acts ancircumstances &ehin the killing o /ino( A8uino that a militar( conspirac( wasresponsi&le or /ino( A8uinos sla(ing! Sai motion was enie &( responent!

ISSUE$ #hether or not the search warrant issue is &ase on a pro&a&le cause!

HE%D$ ro&a&le cause, as efne in urton %! St! aul, <N<! R(! Co!, is constitute &(Gsuch reasons, supporte &( acts an circumstances, as will warrant a cautious man inthe &elie that his actions, an the means taken in prosecuting it, are legall( 'ust anproper!I ?hus, an application or search warrant must state with particularit( the allegesu&%ersi%e materials pu&lishe or intene to &e pu&lishe &( the petitioner! A searchwarrant shoul particularl( escri&e the place to &e searche an the things to &esei"e! ?he e%ient purpose an intent o this re8uirement is to limit the things to &esei"e to those, an onl( those, particularl( escri&e in the search warrant to lea%e theoBcers o the law with no iscretion regaring what articles shoul the( shoul sei"e, tothe en that unreasona&le searches an sei"ures ma( not &e committe! ?he statemento Col! Castillo in his aBa%it state that the( ha%e Goun that the sai pu&lication in actoments istrust an hatre against the go%ernment o the hilippines an its ul(constitute authorities,I together with t! gnacios statement that sai perioicaGcontain s articles tening to incite istrust an hatre or the hilippine 6o%ernment,I isa mere conclusion o law an woul not satis( the re8uirements o pro&a&le cause!

Pe"ple s. "lina



#ACTS$ Sometime in +une --J, S) <arino aguiopon, then a mem&er o thehilippine /ational olice 0/1 etaile at recinct /o! 3, <atina, Da%ao Cit(, recei%ean inormation regaring the presence o an allege mari'uana pusher in Da%ao Cit(! ?hefrst time he came to see the sai mari'uana pusher in person was uring the frst weeko +ul( --J! S) aguiopon was then with his inormer when a motorc(cle passe &(!is inormer pointe to the motorc(cle ri%er, 6regorio <ula ( <alagura 0VFo&o(F1, asthe pusher! As to /asario <olina ( <anamat 0V Fo&ongF1, S) aguiopon ha nooccasion to see him prior to . August --J! At a&out 7O3* a!m! o . August --J, S)

aguiopon recei%e an inormation that the allege pusher will &e passing at /A, <aaDa%ao Cit( an( time that morning! Conse8uentl(, at aroun .O** a!m! he calle orassistance at the /, recinct 3, <atina, Da%ao Cit(, which immeiatel( ispatche theteam o S)4 Dionisio Clori&el 0team leaer1, S)2 aguiopon 0&rother o S) <arinoaguiopon1, an S) amplona, to procee to the house o S) <arino aguioponwhere the( woul wait or the allege pusher to pass &(! At aroun -O3* a!m!, while theteam were positione in the house o S) aguiopon, a FtrisikaF carr(ing <ula an<olina passe &(! At that instance, S) aguiopon pointe to <ula an <olina as thepushers! ?hereupon, the team &oare their %ehicle an o%ertook the Ftrisika!F S)aguiopon was let in his house, 3* meters rom where <ula an <olina were accoste! ?he police oBcers then orere the FtrisikaF to stop! At that point, <ula, who was

holing a &lack &ag, hane the same to <olina! Su&se8uentl(, S) amplonaintrouce himsel as a police oBcer an aske <olina to open the &ag! <olina replie,Foss, i possi&le we will settle this!F S) amplona insiste on opening the &ag, whichre%eale rie mari'uana lea%es insie! ?hereater, <ula an <olina were hancu:e &(the police oBcers! )n J Decem&er --J, the accuse <ula an <olina, through counsel, 'ointl( fle a Demurrer to L%ience, contening that the mari'uana allegel( sei"e romthem is inamissi&le as e%ience or ha%ing &een o&taine in %iolation o theirconstitutional right against unreasona&le searches an sei"ures! ?he emurrer wasenie &( the trial court! A motion or reconsieration was fle &( the accuse, &ut thiswas likewise enie! ?he accuse wai%e presentation o e%ience an opte to fle a 'oint memoranum! )n 25 April --7, the trial court renere the ecision, fning theaccuse guilt( o the o:ense charge, an sentence &oth to su:er the penalt( o eath&( lethal in'ection! ursuant to Article 47 o the Re%ise enal Coe an Rule 22,Section * o the Rules o Court, the case was ele%ate to the Supreme Court onautomatic re%iew!

ISSUE$ #hether <ula an <olina manieste outwar inication that woul 'usti( theirarrest, an the sei"ure o prohi&ite rugs that were in their possession!

HE%D$ ?he unamental law o the lan manates that searches an sei"ures &e carrieout in a reasona&le ashion, that is, &( %irtue or on the strength o a search warrantpreicate upon the eistence o a pro&a&le cause! Complementar( to the oregoingpro%ision is the eclusionar( rule enshrine uner Article , Section 3, paragraph 2,which &olsters an soliifes the protection against unreasona&le searches an sei"ures ?he oregoing constitutional proscription, howe%er, is not without eceptions! Search ansei"ure ma( &e mae without a warrant an the e%ience o&taine thererom ma( &eamissi&le in the ollowing instancesO 01 search incient to a lawul arrestE 021 search oa mo%ing motor %ehicleE 031 search in %iolation o customs lawsE 041 sei"ure o e%iencein plain %iewE 051 when the accuse himsel wai%es his right against unreasona&lesearches an sei"uresE an 0J1 stop an risk situations 0?err( search1! ?he frst eception0search inciental to a lawul arrest1 inclues a %ali warrantless search an sei"urepursuant to an e8uall( %ali warrantless arrest which must precee the search! Still, the



law re8uires that there &e frst a lawul arrest &eore a search can &e mae theprocess cannot &e re%erse! erein, <ula an <olina manieste no outwar inicationthat woul 'usti( their arrest! n holing a &ag on &oar a trisika, the( coul not &e saito &e committing, attempting to commit or ha%e committe a crime! t matters not that<olina respone Foss, i possi&le we will settle thisF to the re8uest o S) amplonato open the &ag! Such response which allegel( reinorce the FsuspicionF o thearresting oBcers that <ula an <olina were committing a crime, is an e8ui%ocastatement which staning alone will not constitute pro&a&le cause to e:ect an in

Kagrante elicto arrest! /ote that were it not or S) <arino aguiopon, <ula an<olina coul not &e the su&'ect o an( suspicion, reasona&le or otherwise! 9urther, itwoul appear that the names an aresses o <ula an <olina came to the knowlegeo S) aguiopon onl( ater the( were arreste, an such cannot len a sem&lance o%aliit( on the arrest e:ecte &( the peace oBcers! #ithal, the Court hols that thearrest o <ula an <olina oes not all uner the eceptions allowe &( the rules! ence,the search conucte on their person was likewise illegal! Conse8uentl(, the mari'uanasei"e &( the peace oBcers coul not &e amitte as e%ience against them!

Partially Valid Warrant

Pe"ple s. Salan)i'

#ACTS$ )n 2J Decem&er --5, Sr! nsp! Aguilar applie or a warrant in the Regiona ?rial Court, ranch -*, DasmariUias, Ca%ite, to search the resience o Ro&ert Salanguit (Qo on inhagan St!, /o%aliches, Pue"on Cit(! e presente as his witness S) Lmunaua, who testife that as a poseur@&u(er, he was a&le to purchase 2!2 grams osha&u rom Salanguit! ?he sale took place in Salunguit>s room, an aua saw that thesha&u was taken &( Salunguit rom a ca&inet insie his room! ?he application wasgrante, an a search warrant was later issue &( resiing +uge Dolores ! LspaUol! Ata&out *O3* p!m! o sai a(, a group o a&out * policemen, along with one ci%ilianinormer, went to the resience o Salunguit to ser%e the warrant! ?he police operati%esknocke on Salanguits oor, &ut no&o( opene it! ?he( hear people insie the house,apparentl( panicking! ?he police operati%es then orce the oor open an entere thehouse! Ater showing the search warrant to the occupants o the house, t! Cortes anhis group starte searching the house! ?he( oun 2 small heat@seale transparentplastic &ags containing a white cr(stalline su&stance, a paper clip &o also containing awhite cr(stalline su&stance, an two &ricks o rie lea%es which appeare to &emari'uana wrappe in newsprint ha%ing a total weight o approimatel( ,255 grams! Areceipt o the items sei"e was prepare, &ut Salanguit reuse to sign it! Ater thesearch, the police operati%es took Salanguit with them to Station *, LDSA, Qamuning,Pue"on Cit(, along with the items the( ha sei"e! )3 Dua"o re8ueste a la&orator(eamination o the confscate e%ience! ?he white cr(stalline su&stance with a totalweight o 2!77 grams an those containe in a small &o with a total weight o .!37grams were oun to &e positi%e or methamphetamine h(rochlorie! )n the otherhan, the two &ricks o rie lea%es, one weighing 425 grams an the other .5* grams,were oun to &e mari'uana! Charges against Ro&erto Salanguit ( Qo or %iolations oRepu&lic Act 0RA1 J425, i!e! or possession o sha&u an mari'uana, 0Criminal Cases P@-5@J4357 an P@ -5@J435., respecti%el(1 were fle on 2. Decem&er --5! Ater hearing,the trial court renere its ecision, con%icting Salanguit in Criminal Cases P@-5@J4357an P@-5@J435. or %iolation o Section J an ., respecti%el(, RA J425, an sentencing



him to su:er an ineterminate sentence with a minimum o J months o arresto ma(oran a maimum o 4 (ears an 2 months o prision correccional, an reclusion perpetuaan to pa( a fne o 7**,***!**, respecti%el(! Salanguit appealeE contesting hiscon%iction on the grouns that 01 the amissi&ilit( o the sha&u allegel( reco%ererom his resience as e%ience against him on the groun that the warrant use ino&taining it was in%aliE 021 the amissi&ilit( in e%ience o the mari'uana allegel(sei"e rom Salanguit to the Fplain %iewF octrineE an 031 the emplo(ment ounnecessar( orce &( the police in the eecution o the warrant!

ISSUE$ #hether the warrant was in%ali or ailure o pro%iing e%ience to support thesei"ure o Grug paraphernaliaI, an whether the mari'uana ma( &e inclue ase%ience in light o the Gplain %iew octrine!I

HE%D$ ?he warrant authori"e the sei"ure o Funetermine 8uantit( o sha&u an rugparaphernalia!F L%ience was presente showing pro&a&le cause o the eistence o

methamphetamine h(rochlorie or sha&u! ?he act that there was no pro&a&le cause tosupport the application or the sei"ure o rug paraphernalia oes not warrant theconclusion that the search warrant is %oi! ?his act woul &e material onl( i rugparaphernalia was in act sei"e &( the police! ?he act is that none was taken &( %irtueo the search warrant issue! at all, thereore, the search warrant is %oi onl( insoar asit authori"e the sei"ure o rug paraphernalia, &ut it is %ali as to the sei"ure omethamphetamine h(rochlorie as to which e%ience was presente showing pro&a&lecause as to its eistence! n sum, with respect to the sei"ure o sha&u rom Salanguit>sresience, Search #arrant J* was properl( issue, such warrant &eing oune onpro&a&le cause personall( etermine &( the 'uge uner oath or aBrmation o theeposing witness an particularl( escri&ing the place to &e searche an the things to

&e sei"e! #ith respect to, an in light o the Fplain %iew octrine,F the police aile toallege the time when the mari'uana was oun, i!e!, whether prior to, orcontemporaneous with, the sha&u su&'ect o the warrant, or whether it was reco%ere onSalanguit>s person or in an area within his immeiate control! ts reco%er(, thereore,presuma&l( uring the search conucte ater the sha&u ha &een reco%ere rom theca&inet, as atteste to &( S) aua in his eposition, was in%ali! ?hus, the CourtaBrme the ecision as to Criminal Case P@-5@J4357 onl(!

Personal determination by judge

S"lien . aasair

#ac's$

?he resient o the hilippines fle a complaint or li&el against the petitioners, who

were the pu&lisher an columnist o the hilippine Star, &ase on the ollowing statement



in eltran>s column o )ct! 2, -.7 totle F?he /er%ous )Bcials o the A8uino

AministrationFO F (ou recall, uring the August 2- coup attempt, the resient hi

uner her &e while the fring was going on @ perhaps the frst Commaner@in@Chie to o

so!F

n this case, upon the issue raise &( petitioner eltran, the constitutional pro%ision on

the issuance o warrants o arrest was calle or an interpretation! eltran wrote in the

hilippine Star that Guring the August 2- coup attempt, the resient hi uner her &ewhile the fring was going on!I Due to this, the resient fle a li&el complaint against

petitioners!

eltran argues that the aition o the wor Gpersonall(I ater the wor GetermineIan the eletion o the grant o authorit( &( the -73 Constitution to issue warrants toGother responsi&le oBcers as ma( &e authori"e &( law!I ?his interpretation con%incehim that the Constitution now re8uires the 'uge to personall( eamine the complainantan his witnesses in his etermination o pro&a&le cause or the issuance o warrants oarrest!

ISSUEO #hether or not eltrans constitution rights were %iolate when the responentR?C 'uge issue a warrant o arrest without personall( eamining the complainant anthe witnesses to etermine pro&a&le cause!

HE%D$ ?he 'uge is not re8uire to personall( eamine the complainant an hiswitnesses! #hat the Constitution unerscores is the eclusi%e an personal responsi&ilit(o the issuing 'uge to satis( himsel o the eistence o pro&a&le cause! nstea, heshall 0a1 personall( e%aluate the report an the supporting ocuments su&mitte &( thefscal regaring the eistence o pro&a&le cause an, on the &asis thereo, issue awarrant o arrestE or 0&1 i on the &asis thereo he fns no pro&a&le cause, he ma(

isregar the fscals report an re8uire the su&mission o supporting aBa%its owitnesses to ai him in arri%ing at a conclusion as to the eistence o pro&a&le cause! ?his proceure shoul &e ollowe, otherwise 'uges woul &e unul( laen with thepreliminar( eaminations an in%estigation o criminal complaints instea oconcentrating on hearing an eciing cases fle &eore their courts! n making there8uire personal etermination, a +uge is not preclue rom rel(ing on the e%ienceearlier gathere &( responsi&le oBcers! ?he etent o the reliance epens on thecircumstances o each case an is su&'ect to the +uges soun iscretion!

%I, SR. VS 4UD(E #E%I7

#ac's$ )n <arch 7, -.-, at a&out 7O3* o>clockin the morning, at the %icinit( o theairport roa o the <as&ate Domestic Airport, locate at the municipalit( o <as&atepro%ince o <as&ate, Congressman <oises Lspinosa, Sr! an his securit( escorts, namel(ro%incial 6uarsAntonio Cortes, 6aspar Amaro, an Artemio 9uentes were attacke ankille&( a lone assassin! Dante Si&lante another securit( escort oCongressmanLspinosa, Sr! sur%i%e the assassination plot, although, he himsel su:erea gunshot woun! An in%estigation o the incient then ollowe! hereater, an or thepurpose o preliminar( in%estigation, the esignate in%estigator, arr( )! ?antiao, ?Sg,



o the C Criminal n%estigation Ser%ice at Camp agong &alon ega"pi Cit( fleanamene complaint with the <unicipal ?rial Court o <as&ate accusing, amongothers,;icente im, Sr!,<a(or Susana imo <as&ate, +oll( ?! 9ernane", 9lorencio ?! 9ernane", +r!, /onilon A! agalihog,<a(or/estor C! im an <a(or AntonioQho o the crime omultiple murer an rustrate murer in connection with the airport incient! ?he casewas ockete as Criminal Case /o! -2 Ater conucting the preliminar( in%estigationthe court issue an orer ate +ul( 3, -.- stating therein thatO G! ! ! ater weighing theaBa%its ananswers gi%en &( the witnesses or the prosecution uring the preliminar(

eamination in searching 8uestions an answers, conclues that a pro&a&le cause has&een esta&lishe or the issuance o awarrant o arrest o name accuse in theamene complaint, namel(, +imm( Ca&arles, Ronnie 9ernane", /onilon agalihog, +oll(9ernane", 9lorencio 9ernane", +r!, ;icente im, Sr!, Susanaim, /estor im, AntonioQho, +aime iwanag, Hal( Dumalag an Rene ?uallaalias ?io(!I

etitioners ;icente im, Sr! an Susanaim fle with the responent court se%eramotions an maniestations which in su&stance pra(e that an orer &e issue re8uiringthe transmittal o the initial recors o the preliminar( in8uir( or in%estigation conucte&( the <unicipal +uge arsaga o <as&ate or the &est enlightenment regaring theeistence o a pro&a&le cause or prima acie e%ience as well as the etermination o the

eistence o guilt, pursuant to the manator( manate o the constitution that nowarrant shall &e issue unless the issuing magistrate shall ha%e himsel &een personall(con%ince o suchpro&a&le cause! n another maniestation, the ims reiterate that thecourt conuct ahearing to etermine i there reall( eistsa prima acie case against themin thelight o ocuments which are recantations o some witnesses in the preliminar(in%estigation!@ t shoul also &e note thatthe ims also presente to the responent +uge ocuments o recantation o witnesses whose testimonies were use to esta&lish aprima acie case againstthem!@)n +ul( 5, --*, the responent court issue an oreren(ing or lack o merit the motions an maniestations an issue warrants o arrestagainst the accuse incluing the petitioners herein!

?he 'uge wrote,Gn the instant cases, the preliminar( in%estigation was conucte &(the<unicipal ?rial Court o <as&ate, <as&ate which oun the eistence o pro&a&lecause that the o:ense o multiple murer was committe an that all the accuse arepro&a&l( guilt( thereo, which was aBrme upon re%iew &( the ro%incial rosecutor whoproperl( fle with theRegional ?rial Court our separate inormations or murerConsiering that &oth the two competent oBcers to whom such ut( was entruste &(law ha%eeclare the eistence o pro&a&le cause, each inormation is complete in orman su&stance, an there is no %isi&le eecton its ace, this Court fns it 'ust an properto rel( on the prosecutor>s certifcation in each inormationWI etitioners 8uestion the 'ugment o +uge 9eli

ISSUE$ #)/ a 'uge ma( issue a warranto arrest without &ail &( simpl( rel(ing ontheprosecution>s certifcation an recommenation that a pro&a&le cause eists!

HE%D$ As hel in Soli%en %! <akasiar, the +uge oes not ha%e to personall( eamine thecomplainant an his witnesses! ?he rosecutor can perorm the same unctions as acommissioner or the taking o the e%ience! owe%er, there shoul &e necessar(ocuments an a report supporting the 9iscal>s &are certifcation! All o these shoul &e&eore the +uge!#e cannot etermine &eorehan how cursor( or ehausti%e the +uge>s



eamination shoul &e! =suall(, this epens on the circumstances o each case! ?he +uge has to eercise soun iscretionE ater all, the personal etermination is %este inthe +uge &(the Constitution! owe%er, to &e sure, the +uge must go &e(on therosecutor>scertifcation an in%estigation report whene%er necessar( As mentione inthe acts 0state a&o%e1,the ims presente ocuments o recantations o the witnessesAlthough,the general rule is that recantations are not gi%en much weight in theetermination o a case an in the granting o a new trial the responent +uge &eoreissuing his own warrants o arrest shoul, at the %er( least, ha%e goneo%er the recors o

the preliminar( eamination conucte earlier in the light o the e%ience now presente&( the concerne witnesses in %iew o theFpolitical unertonesF pre%ailing in the cases!nmaking the re8uire personal etermination, a +uge is not preclue rom rel(ing on thee%ience earlier gathere &( responsi&le oBcers! ?he etent o the reliance epens onthe circumstances o each case an is su&'ectto the +uge>s soun iscretionowe%er,the +uge a&uses that iscretion when ha%ing no e%ience &eore him, heissuesa warrant o arrest!nu&ita&l(, the responent +uge 09eli1committe a gra%eerror when he relie solel( on the rosecutors certifcation an issue the 8uestione)rer ate +ul( 5,--* without ha%ing &eore him an( other &asis or his personaletermination o the eistence o a pro&a&le cause!

Paderana s. Dril"n

#ACTS$ )n J )cto&er -.J, an inormation or multiple murer was fle in theRegional ?rial Court, 6ingoog Cit(, against 9elipe 6alarion, <anuel Sa&it, Cesar Sa&it, +ulito Ampo, Lie ?orion, +ohn Doe, eter Doe an Richar Doe, or the eaths on <a(-.4 o Renato ucag, his wie <elchora ucag, an their son Renato ucag ! ;enuewas, howe%er, transerre to Caga(an e )ro Cit( per Aministrati%e <atter .7@ 2@244!)nl( 9elipe 6alarion was trie an oun guilt( as charge! ?he rest o the accuseremaine at large! 9elipe 6alarion, howe%er, escape rom etention an has not &eenapprehene since then! n an amene inormation fle on J )cto&er -.., 9eli"aroRoas, alias FLl( Roas,F F9el( RoasF an Folong Roas,F was inclue as a co@accuseRoas retaine Att(! <iguel ! aeranga as his counsel! As counsel or Roas, aerangafle, among others, an )mni&us <otion to ismiss, to Puash the #arrant o Arrest anto /ulli( the Arraignment on 4 )cto&er -..! ?he trial court in an orer ate - +anuar( -.-, enie the omni&us motion &ut irecte the Cit( rosecutor Fto conuctanother preliminar( in%estigation or rein%estigation in orer to grant the accuse all theopportunit( to auce whate%er e%ience he has in support o his eense!F n thecourse o the preliminar( in%estigation, through a signe aBa%it, 9eli"aro Roasimplicate Att(! aeranga in the commission o the crime charge! ?he Cit( rosecutoro Caga(an e )ro Cit( inhi&ite himsel rom urther conucting the preliminar(in%estigation against aeranga at the instance o the latter>s counsel, per his resolutionate 7 +ul( -.-! n his frst inorsement to the Department o +ustice, ate 24 +ul(-.-, sai cit( prosecutor re8ueste the Department o +ustice to esignate a stateprosecutor to continue the preliminar( in%estigation against aeranga! n a resolutionate J Septem&er -.-, the State rosecutor enrick 9! 6ingo(on, who was esignateto continue with the conuct o the preliminar( in%estigation against aeranga, irectethe amenment o the pre%iousl( amene inormation to inclue an impleaaeranga as one o the accuse therein! aeranga mo%e or reconsieration



contening that the preliminar( in%estigation was not (et complete when sairesolution was promulgate, an that he was epri%e o his right to present acorresponing counter@aBa%it an aitional e%ience crucial to the etermination ohis allege FlinkageF to the crime charge! ?he motion was, howe%er, enie &(6ingo(on in his orer ate 2- +anuar( --*! 9rom the aoresai resolution an orer,aeranga fle a etition or Re%iew with the Department o +ustice! ?hereater, hesu&mitte a Supplemental etition with <emoranum, an then a Supplementa<emoranum with Aitional Lculpator(Lonerating L%ience Annee, attaching

thereto an aBa%it o Roas ate 2* +une --* an purporting to &e a retraction o hisaBa%it o 3* <arch --* wherein he implicate aeranga! )n * August --*, theDepartment o +ustice, through =nersecretar( Sil%estre ! ello , issue ResolutionJ4. ismissing the sai petition or re%iew! is motion or reconsieration ha%ing &eenlikewise enie, aeranga then fle the petition or manamus an prohi&ition &eorethe Supreme Court!

ISSUE$ #hether there is no prima acie e%ience, or pro&a&le cause, or suBcient 'ustifcation to hol aerangato a teious an prolonge pu&lic trial!

HE%D$ A preliminar( in%estigation is efne as an in8uir( or proceeing or the purposeo etermining whether there is suBcient groun to engener a well oune &elie thata crime cogni"a&le &( the Regional ?rial Court has &een committe an that theresponent is pro&a&l( guilt( thereo, an shoul &e hel or trial! ?he 8uantum oe%ience now re8uire in preliminar( in%estigation is such e%ience suBcient toFengener a well oune &elieF as to the act o the commission o a crime an theresponent>s pro&a&le guilt thereo! A preliminar( in%estigation is not the occasion orthe ull an ehausti%e ispla( o the parties> e%ienceE it is or the presentation o suche%ience onl( as ma( engener a well groune &elie that an o:ense has &eencommitte an that the accuse is pro&a&l( guilt( thereo! reliminar( in%estigation isgenerall( in8uisitorial, an it is oten the onl( means o isco%ering the persons who ma(&e reasona&l( charge with a crime, to ena&le the fscal to prepare his complaint orinormation! t is not a trial o the case on the merits an has no purpose ecept that oetermining whether a crime has &een committe an whether there is pro&a&le causeto &elie%e that the accuse is guilt( thereo, an it oes not place the person againstwhom it is taken in 'eopar(! ?he institution o a criminal action epens upon the souniscretion o the fscal! e has the 8uasi@'uicial iscretion to etermine whether or not acriminal case shoul &e fle in court! ence, the general rule is that an in'unction willnot &e grante to restrain a criminal prosecution! ?he case o rocka, et al! %s! Lnrile, etal! cites se%eral eceptions to the rule, to witO 0a1 ?o a:or ae8uate protection to theconstitutional rights o the accuseE 0&1 #hen necessar( or the orerl( aministration o 'ustice or to a%oi oppression or multiplicit( o actionsE 0c1 #hen there is a pre'uicia8uestion which is su&@'uiceE 01 #hen the acts o the oBcer are without or in ecess oauthorit(E 0e1 #here the prosecution is uner an in%ali law, orinance or regulationE 01#hen ou&le 'eopar( is clearl( apparentE 0g1 #here the court has no 'urisiction o%erthe o:enseE 0h1 #here it is a case o persecution rather than prosecutionE 0i1 #here thecharges are maniestl( alse an moti%ate &( the lust or %engeanceE an 0'1 #henthere is clearl( no prima acie case against the accuse an a motion to 8uash on thatgroun has &een enie! A careul anal(sis o the circumstances o&taining in the present



case, howe%er, will reail( show that the same oes not all uner an( o the aoresaieceptions!

A8d)la s. ()iani

#ACTS$ )n 24 +une --4, a complaint or murer 0S -4@3J1 was fle &eore theCriminal n%estigation Ser%ice Comman, AR<< Regional )Bce M against <a(or a=nggie D! A&ula an )in A&ula an J other persons in connection with the eath o acertain A&ul Dimalen, the ormer C)<LLC Registrar o Qa&untalan, <aguinanao! ?hecomplaint allege that the A&ulas pai the J other persons the total amount o2**,***!** or the eath o Dimalen! Acting on this complaint, the ro%incial rosecutoro <aguinanao, Salick =! ana, in a Resolution ate 22 August --4, ismisse thecharges o murer against the A&ulas an 5 other responents on a fning that therewas no prima acie case or murer against them! rosecutor ana, howe%errecommene the fling o an inormation or murer against one o the responents, a

certain Qasan <ama! ursuant to this Resolution, an inormation or murer wasthereater fle against Qasan <ama &eore the sala o +uge +apal <! 6uiani! n an )rerate 3 Septem&er --4, the +uge orere that the case 0Criminal Case 23321, &ereturne to the ro%incial rosecutor or urther in%estigation! n this )rer, the 'ugenote that although there were . responents in the murer case, the inormation flewith the court Fcharge onl( o the . responents in the name o Qasan <ama withoutthe necessar( resolution re8uire uner Section 4, Rule 2 o the Re%ise Rules o Courtto show how the in%estigating prosecutor arri%e at such a conclusion!F As such, the 'uge reasons, the trial court cannot issue the warrant o arrest against Qasan <ama=pon the return o the recors o the case to the )Bce o the ro%incial rosecutor or<aguinanao, it was assigne to 2n Assistant rosecutor Lnok ?! Dimaraw or urtherin%estigation! n aition to the e%ience presente uring the initial in%estigation o themurer charge, two new aBa%its o witnesses were su&mitte to support the charge omurer against the A&ulas an the other responents in the murer complaint! ?husrosecutor Dimaraw treate the same as a re@fling o the murer charge an pursuant tolaw, issue su&poena to the responents name therein! )n J Decem&er --4, theA&ulas su&mitte an fle their 'oint counter@aBa%its! Ater e%aluation o thee%ience, rosecutor Dimaraw, in a Resolution ate 2. Decem&er --4, oun a primaacie case or murer against the A&ulas an 3 other responents! e thusrecommene the fling o charges against the A&ulas, as principals &( inucementan against the 3 others, as principals &( irect participation! ikewise in this 2.Decem&er --4 Resolution, ro%incial rosecutor Salick =! ana, who conucte theearlier preliminar( in%estigation o the murer charge, ae a notation stating that hewas inhi&iting himsel rom the case an authori"ing the in%estigating prosecutor toispose o the case without his appro%al! ?he reasons he cite were that the case waspre%iousl( hanle &( him an that the %ictim was the ather@in@law o his son! )n 2 +anuar( --5, an inormation or murer ate 2. Decem&er --4 was fle against theA&ulas an Qasan <ama, Cuenco =sman an +un <ama &eore ranch 4 o theRegional ?rial Court o Cota&ato Cit(, then the sala o +uge 6uiani! ?his inormation wassigne &( in%estigating prosecutor Lnok ?! Dimaraw! A notation was likewise mae on theinormation &( ro%incial rosecutor ana, which eplaine the reason or his inhi&ition ?he ollowing a(, the 'uge issue a warrant or the arrest o the A&ulas! =pon learning



o the issuance o the sai warrant, the A&ulas fle on 4 +anuar( --5 an =rgent L@parte <otion or the setting asie o the warrant o arrest on 4 +anuar( --5! n thismotion, the A&ulas argue that the enorcement o the warrant o arrest shoul &e helin a&e(ance consiering that the inormation was prematurel( fle an that the A&ulasintene to fle a petition or re%iew with the Department o +ustice! A petition or re%iewwas fle &( the A&ulas with the Department o +ustice on +anuar( --5! Despite saifling, the 'uge i not act upon the A&ulas> pening <otion to Set Asie the #arrant oArrest! ?he A&ulas fle the etition or Certiorari an rohi&ition with the Supreme

Court

ISSUE$ #hether the 'uge ma( rel( upon the fnings o the prosecutor in eterminingpro&a&le cause in the issuance o search or arrest warrant!

HE%D$ ?he -.7 Constitution re8uires the 'uge to etermine pro&a&le causeFpersonall(,F a re8uirement which oes not appear in the corresponing pro%isions o ourpre%ious constitutions! ?his emphasis e%inces the intent o the ramers to place a greateregree o responsi&ilit( upon trial 'uges than that impose uner pre%iousConstitutions! erein, the +uge amits that he issue the 8uestione warrant as therewas Fno reason or 0him1 to ou&t the %aliit( o the certifcation mae &( the Assistant

rosecutor that a preliminar( in%estigation was conucte an that pro&a&le cause wasoun to eist as against those charge in the inormation fle!F ?he statement is anamission that the +uge relie solel( an completel( on the certifcation mae &( thefscal that pro&a&le cause eists as against those charge in the inormation an issuethe challenge warrant o arrest on the sole &asis o the prosecutor>s fnings anrecommenations! e aopte the 'ugment o the prosecutor regaring the eistenceo pro&a&le cause as his own! Clearl(, the 'uge, &( merel( stating that he ha no reasonto ou&t the %aliit( o the certifcation mae &( the in%estigating prosecutor hasa&icate his ut( uner the Constitution to etermine on his own the issue o pro&a&lecause &eore issuing a warrant o arrest! Conse8uentl(, the warrant o arrest shoul &eeclare null an %oi!

Examination of Witnesses

Pasi"n Vda. de (arcia s. %"csin

asion ;a! e 6arcia %s! ocsin 6R 45-5*, 2* +une -3.T 9irst Di%ision, aurel 0+1O Jconcur

#ACTS$ )n * /o%em&er -34, <ariano 6! Almea, an agent o the Anti@=sur( oar,o&taine rom the 'ustice o the peace o ?arlac, ?arlac, a search warrant commaningan( oBcer o the law to search the person, house or store o eona asion ;a! e 6arciaat ;ictoria, ?arlac, or Fcertain &ooks, lists, chits, receipts, ocuments an other papersrelating to her acti%ities as usurer!F ?he search warrant was issue upon an aBa%itgi%en &( the sai Almea Fthat he has an there is 'ust an pro&a&le cause to &elie%ean he oes &elie%e that eona asion e 6arcia keeps an conceals in her house an



store at ;ictoria, ?arlac, certain &ooks, lists, chits, receipts, ocuments, an other papersrelating to her acti%ities as usurer, all o which is contrar( to the statute in such casesmae an pro%ie!F )n the same ate, Almea, accompanie &( a captain o thehilippine Consta&ular(, went to the oBce o asion e 6arcia in ;ictoria, ?arlac an,ater showing the search warrant to the latter>s &ookkeeper, Alreo Salas, an, withoutasion e 6arcia>s presence who was ill an confne at the time, proceee with theeecution thereo! ?wo packages o recors an a locke fling ca&inet containing se%eralpapers an ocuments were sei"e &( Almea an a receipt thereor issue &( him to

Salas! ?he papers an ocuments sei"e were kept or a consiera&le length o time &(the Anti@=sur( oar an thereater were turne o%er &( it to the pro%incial fscal 9elimperial, who su&se8uentl( fle, in the Court o 9irst nstance 0C91 o ?arlac, J separatecriminal cases against asion e 6arcia or %iolation o the Anti@=sur( aw! )n se%eraoccasions, ater sei"ure, asion e 6arcia, through counsel, emane rom the Anti@=sur( oar the return o the ocuments sei"e! )n +anuar( 7, an, &( motion, on 4 +une-37, the legalit( o the search warrant was challenge &( asion e 6arcia>s counsel inthe J criminal cases an the e%olution o the ocuments emane! ( resolution o 5)cto&er -37, +uge Diego ocsin 0C91 enie asion e garcia>s motion o +une 4 or thereason that though the search warrant was illegal, there was a wai%er on the latter>spart! A motion or reconsieration was presente &ut was enie &( orer o 3 +anuar(

-3.! asion e 6arcia registere her eception!

ISSUE$ #hether the lack o personal eamination o witnesses reners the warrant %oi!

HE%D$ 9reeom rom unreasona&le searches an sei"ures is eclare a popular right anor a search warrant to &e %ali, 01 it must &e issue upon pro&a&le causeE 021 thepro&a&le cause must &e etermine &( the 'uge himsel an not &( the applicant or an(other personE 031 in the etermination o pro&a&le cause, the 'uge must eamine, uneroath or aBrmation, the complainant an such witnesses as the latter ma( prouceE an041 the warrant issue must particularl( escri&e the place to &e searche an personsor things to &e sei"e! ?hese re8uirements are complemente &( the Coe o Criminalroceure, particularl( with reerence to the uration o the %aliit( o the search warrantan the o&ligation o the oBcer sei"ing the propert( to eli%er the same to thecorresponing court! erein, the eistence o pro&a&le cause was etermine not &( the 'uge himsel &ut &( the applicant! All that the 'uge i was to accept as true theaBa%it mae &( agent Almea! e i not ecie or himsel! t oes not appear that heeamine the applicant an his witnesses, i an(! L%en accepting the escription o theproperties to &e sei"e to &e suBcient an on the assumption that the receipt issue issuBcientl( etaile within the meaning o the law, the properties sei"e were noteli%ere to the court which issue the warrant, as re8uire &( law! nstea, the( wereturne o%er to the pro%incial fscal an use &( him in &uiling up cases against asione 6arcia! Consiering that at the time the warrant was issue there was no casepening against asion e 6arcia, the a%erment that the warrant was issue primaril( oreploration purposes is not without &asis! ?he search warrant was illegall( issue &( the 'ustice o the peace o ?arlac, ?arlac! n an( e%ent, the ailure on the part o asion e6arcia an her &ookkeeper to resist or o&'ect to the eecution o the warrant oes notconstitute an implie wai%er o constitutional right! t is, as +uge Coole( o&ser%es, &ut asu&mission to the authorit( o the law! As the constitutional guarant( is not epenent



upon an( aBrmati%e act o the citi"en, the courts o not place the citi"en in the positiono either contesting an oBcer>s authorit( &( orce, or wai%ing his constitutional rightsE&ut instea the( hol that a peaceul su&mission to a search or sei"ure is not a consentor an in%itation thereto, &ut is merel( a emonstration o regar or the supremac( o thelaw!

a'a s. /a9"na

#ACTS$ Soriano <ata was accuse uner resiential Decree 0D1 .*, as amene &(D 3*J, the inormation against him alleging that Soriano <ata o:ere, took anarrange &ets on the +ai Alai game &( Fselling illegal tickets known as ><asiao ticketswithout an( authorit( rom the hilippine +ai Alai N Amusement Corporation or rom thego%ernment authorities concerne!F <ata claime that uring the hearing o the case, he

isco%ere that nowhere rom the recors o the sai case coul &e oun the searchwarrant an other pertinent papers connecte to the issuance o the same, so that heha to in8uire rom the Cit( 9iscal its wherea&outs, an to which in8uir( +uge +osephineQ! a(ona, presiing +ue o the Cit( Court o )rmoc replie, Fit is with the courtF! ?he +uge then hane the recors to the 9iscal who attache them to the recors! ?his le<ata to fle a motion to 8uash an annul the search warrant an or the return o thearticles sei"e, citing an in%oking, among others, Section 4 o Rule 2J o the Re%iseRules o Court! ?he motion was enie &( the +uge on <arch -7-, stating that thecourt has mae a thorough in%estigation an eamination uner oath o ernaro =!6oles an Re(nalo ?! <a(ote, mem&ers o the ntelligence Section o 352n CCo!olice District /E that in act the court mae a certifcation to that e:ectE an thatthe act that ocuments relating to the search warrant were not attache immeiatel( tothe recor o the criminal case is o no moment, consiering that the rule oes notspeci( when these ocuments are to &e attache to the recors! <ata>s motion orreconsieration o the aoresai orer ha%ing &een enie, he came to the SupremeCourt, with the petition or certiorari, pra(ing, among others, that the Court eclare thesearch warrant to &e in%ali or its allege ailure to compl( with the re8uisites o theConstitution an the Rules o Court, an that all the articles confscate uner suchwarrant as inamissi&le as e%ience in the case, or in an( proceeings on the matter!

ISSUE$ #hether the 'uge must &eore issuing the warrant personall( eamine on oathor aBrmation the complainant an an( witnesses he ma( prouce an take theirepositions in writing, an attach them to the recor, in aition to an( aBa%itspresente to him!

HE%D$ =ner the Constitution Fno search warrant shall issue &ut upon pro&a&le cause to&e etermine &( the +uge or such other responsi&le oBcer as ma( &e authori"e &(law ater eamination uner oath or aBrmation o the complainant an the witnesses he



ma( prouceF! <ore emphatic an etaile is the implementing rule o the constitutionalin'unction, ?he Rules pro%ie that the 'uge must &eore issuing the warrant personall(eamine on oath or aBrmation the complainant an an( witnesses he ma( prouce antake their epositions in writing, an attach them to the recor, in aition to an(aBa%its presente to him! <ere aBa%its o the complainant an his witnesses are thusnot suBcient! ?he eamining +uge has to take epositions in writing o the complainantan the witnesses he ma( prouce an to attach them to the recor! Such writteneposition is necessar( in orer that the +uge ma( &e a&le to properl( etermine the

eistence or noneistence o the pro&a&le cause, to hol lia&le or per'ur( the persongi%ing it i it will &e oun later that his eclarations are alse! #e, thereore, hol thatthe search warrant is tainte with illegalit( &( the ailure o the +uge to conorm with theessential re8uisites o taking the epositions in writing an attaching them to the recor,renering the search warrant in%ali!

:ee S)e ;"9 s. Al&eda

#ACTS$ n response to a sworn application o <ariano 6! Almea, chie agent o the Anti@=sur( oar, ate 5 <a( -3., the 'ustice o the peace o Saga(, )cciental /egros,ater taking the testimon( o applicant>s witness, +ose Lstraa, special agent o the Anti@=sur( oar, issue on the same ate a search warrant commaning an( peace oBcerto search uring a( time the store an premises occupie &( Sam Sing N Co!, situateat Saga(, )cciental /egros, as well as the person o sai Sam Sing N Co!, an to sei"ethe ocuments, note&ooks, lists, receipts an promissor( notes &eing use &( sai SamSing N Co! in connection with their acti%ities o lening mone( at usurious rates ointerest in %iolation o law, or such as ma( &e oun, an to &ring them orthwith &eorethe aoresai 'ustice o the peace o Saga(! )n the same ate, at *O3* a! m!, search wasaccoringl( mae &( <ariano 6! Almea, +ose Lstraa, 2 internal re%enue agents an 2mem&ers o the hilippine Arm(, who sei"e certain receipt &ooks, %ales or promissor(notes, chits, note&ooks, 'ournal &ook, an collection list &elonging to Sam Sing N Co! anenumerate in the in%entor( receipt issue &( <ariano 6! Almea to the owner o theocuments, papers an articles sei"e! mmeiatel( ater the search an sei"ure thuse:ecte, <ariano 6! Almea fle a return with the 'ustice o the peace o Saga(together! #ith a re8uest that the oBce o the Anti@=sur( oar &e allowe to retainpossession o the articles sei"e or eamination, pursuant to section 4 o Act 4*-,which re8uest was grante! =ner the ate o <arch -3-, 6ooreo ! Lscalona,counsel or Sam Sing N Co! fle a motion with the Court o 9irst nstance 0C91 o)cciental /egros pra(ing that the search warrant an the sei"ure e:ecte thereuner&e eclare illegal an set asie an that the articles in 8uestion &e orere returne toSam Sing N Co!, which motion was enie in the orer ate 24 +ul( -3-! A similarmotion was presente to the 'ustice o the peace o Saga( on 27 )cto&er -3- &ut wasenie the net a(! <eanwhile, an inormation ate 3* Septem&er -3- ha &een flein the C9 )cciental /egros, charging Xee 9ock alias Xee Sue Qo(, X! ?ip an A! Sing,managers o Sam Sing N Co!, with a %iolation o Act 2J55! eore the criminal case coul&e trie, Xee Sue Qo( an Xee ?ip fle the petition with the Supreme Court on J/o%em&er -3-! ?he petition is groune on the propositions 01 that the search warrantissue on 2 <a( -3., &( the 'ustice o the peace o Saga( an the sei"ure accomplishethereuner are illegal, &ecause the warrant was issue three a(s ahea o the



application thereor an o the aBa%it o the +ose Lstraa which is insuBcient in itsel to 'usti( the issuance o a search warrant, an &ecause the issuance o sai warrantmaniestl( contra%enes the manator( pro%isions &oth o section , paragraph 3, oArticle o the Constitution an o section -7 o 6eneral )rers 5., an 021 that thesei"ure o the aoresai articles &( means o a search warrant or the purpose o usingthem as e%ience in the criminal case against the accuse, is unconstitutional &ecausethe warrant there&( &ecomes unreasona&le an amounts to a %iolation o theconstitutional prohi&ition against compelling the accuse to testi( against themsel%es!

ISSUE$ #hether the application o the search warrant is supporte &( the personaknowlege o the witness, &esies the applicant, or the 'uge to etermine pro&a&lecause in issuing the warrant!

HE%D$ Strict o&ser%ance o the ormalities uner section , paragraph 3, o Article othe Constitution an o section -7 o 6eneral )rers 5. was ollowe! ?he applicant

<ariano 6! Almea, in his application, swore that Fhe mae his own personain%estigation an ascertaine that Sam Sing N Co! is lening mone( without license,charging usurious rate o interest an is keeping, utili"ing an concealing in the storean premises occupie &( it situate at Saga(, )cciental /egros, ocumentsnote&ooks, lists, receipts, promissor( notes, an &ook o accounts an recors, all owhich are &eing use &( it in connection with its acti%ities o lening mone( at usuriousrate o interest in %iolation o the =sur( aw!F n turn, the witness +ose Lstraa, in histestimon( &eore the 'ustice o the peace o Saga(, swore that he knew that Sam Sing NCo! was lening mone( without license an charging usurious rate o interest, &ecausehe personall( in%estigate the %ictims who ha secure loans rom sai Sam Sing N Coan were charge usurious rate o interestE that he knew that the sai Sam Sing N Co!was keeping an using &ooks o accounts an recors containing its transactions relati%eits acti%ities as mone( lener an the entries o the interest pai &( its e&tors, &ecausehe saw the sai Sam Sing N make entries an recors o their e&ts an the interestpai thereon! As &oth <ariano 6! Almea an +ose Lstraa swore that the( ha personaknowlege, their aBa%its were suBcient or, thereuner, the( coul &e hel lia&le orper'ur( i the acts woul turn out to &e not as their were state uner oath! ?hat theeistence o pro&a&le cause ha &een etermine &( the 'ustice o the peace o Saga(&eore issuing the search warrant complaine o, is shown &( the ollowing statement inthe warrant itsel, to witO FAter eamination uner oath o the complainant, <ariano 6!Almea, Chie Agent o the Anti@=sur( oar, Department o +ustice an Special Agent othe hilippine Arm(, <anila, an the witness he presente, ! ! ! an this Court, fningthat there is 'ust an pro&a&le cause to &elie%e as it oes &elie%e, that the a&o%eescri&e articles, relating to the acti%ities o sai Sam Sing N Co! o lening mone( atusurious rate o interest, are &eing utili"e an kept an conceale at its store anpremises occupie &( sai Sam Sing N Co!, all in %iolation o law!F

Particularity of description



5lae* s. Pe"ple "3 'he Philippines

#ACTS$ Aolo )laes an ina <! Cru" were charge or %iolation o the DangerousDrugs Act! )laes an Cru" fle a petition or certiorari an prohi&ition with preliminar(

in'unction, challenging the amission &( +uge Alicia ! Santos 0in her capacit( asresiing +uge o the Regional ?rial Court o )longapo Cit(, ranch 731 o e%iencesei"e &( %irtue o an allegel( in%ali search warrant an o an etra'uicial conessiontaken rom them without accoring them the right to assistance o counselE an thusseek to restrain urther proceeings in the criminal case against them an ask that the(&e ac8uitte with the setting asie o the 8uestione orers 0the acts o not pro%ie theisposition o the sai orers1! )laes an Cru" claim that the search warrant issue &(the 'uge is unconstitutional &ecause it oes not inicate the specifc o:ense the( aresuppose to ha%e committe! ?here is, thereore, accoring to them, no %ali fning opro&a&le cause as a 'ustifcation or the issuance o the sai warrant in conormit( withthe ill o Rights!

ISSUE$ #hether the lack o specifc section o the Dangerous Drugs Act reners thecaption %ague, an negates the claim that the specifc o:ense was committe to ser%eas &asis or the fning o pro&a&le cause!

HE%D$ /o! ?he search warrant issue oes not come uner the strictures o the Stonehilloctrine! #hile in the case cite, there was a &are reerence to the laws in general,without an( specifcation o the particular sections thereo that were allege to ha%e&een %iolate out o the hunres o prohi&itions containe in such coifcations, there isno similar am&iguit( herein! #hile it is true that the caption o the search warrant statesthat it is in connection with F;iolation o RA J425, otherwise known as the DangerousDrugs Acts o -72,F it is clearl( recite in the tet thereo that F?here is pro&a&le causeto &elie%e that Aolo )laes alias >De&ie> an alias >a&(> o /o! J2. Comia St!, 9iltrationSta! Rita, )longapo Cit(, has in their possession an control an custo( o mari'uanarie stalkslea%esseescigarettes an other regulateprohi&ite an eempt narcoticspreparations which is the su&'ect o the o:ense state a&o%e!F Although the specifcsection o the Dangerous Drugs Act is not pinpointe, there is no 8uestion at all o thespecifc o:ense allege to ha%e &een committe as a &asis or the fning o pro&a&lecause! ?he search warrant also satisfes the re8uirement in the ill o Rights o theparticularit( o the escription to &e mae o the Fplace to &e searche an the personsor things to &e sei"e!F

Pr)den'e s. Da9ri'



#ACTS$ )n 3 )cto&er -.7, <a'or Allain Dimagmaliw, Chie o the ntelligenceSpecial Action Di%ision 0SAD1 o the #estern olice District 0#D1, fle with the Regional ?rial Court 0R?C1 o <anila, ranch 33, presie o%er &( +uge A&elaro Da(rit, nowAssociate +ustice o the Court o Appeals, an application or the issuance o a searchwarrant 0Search #arrant .7@41 or %iolation o resiential Decree .JJ 0llegaossession o 9irearms, etc!1 entitle Feople o the hilippines %s! /emesio L! ruente!F)n the same a(, the +uge issue the Search #arrant, commaning Dimagmaliw Ftomake an immeiate search at an( time in the a( or night o the premises o ol(technic

=ni%ersit( o the hilippines, more particularl( 0a1 oBces o the Department o <ilitar(Science an ?actics at the groun Koor an other rooms at the groun KoorE 0&1 oBce othe resient, Dr! /emesio ruente at =, Secon 9loor an other rooms at the seconKoor, an orthwith sei"e an take possession o the ollowing personal properties, to witO0a1 < J Armalites with ammunitionE 0&1 !3. an !45 Cali&er hanguns an pistolsE 0c1eplosi%es an han grenaesE an 01 assorte weapons with ammunitions!F )n /o%em&er -.7, a Suna( an All Saints Da(, the search warrant was enorce &( some2** #D operati%es le &( Col! Lgar Dula ?orre, Deput( Superintenent, #D, an<a'or Romeo <aganto, recinct . Commaner! n his aBa%it, ate 2 /o%em&er-.7, Ricaro A&ano ( Xusa(, a mem&er o the searching team, allege that he oun inthe rawer o a ca&inet insie the wash room o Dr! ruente>s oBce a &ulging &rown

en%elope with 3 li%e ragmentation han grenaes separatel( wrappe with olnewspapers! )n J /o%em&er -.7, ruente mo%e to 8uash the search warrant! eclaime that 01 the complainant>s lone witness, t! 9lorenio C! Angeles, ha no personaknowlege o the acts which orme the &asis or the issuance o the search warrantE 021the eamination o the sai witness was not in the orm o searching 8uestions ananswersE 031 the search warrant was a general warrant, or the reason that it i notparticularl( escri&e the place to &e searche an that it aile to charge one specifco:enseE an 041 the search warrant was issue in %iolation o Circular - o the SupremeCourt in that the complainant aile to allege uner oath that the issuance o the searchwarrant on a Satura( was urgent! )n - <arch -.., the +uge issue an orer, en(ingruente>s motion an supplemental motion to 8uash! ruente>s motion orreconsieration was likewise enie in the orer ate 2* April -..! ruente fle apetition or certiorari with the Supreme Court!

ISSUE$ #hether the allegations containe in the application o <a'or AllainDimagmaliw an the eclaration o t! 9lorenio C! Angeles in his eposition weresuBcient &asis or the issuance o a %ali search warrant!

HE%D$ ?he Fpro&a&le causeF or a %ali search warrant, has &een efne Fas such actsan circumstances which woul lea a reasona&l( iscreet an pruent man to &elie%ethat an o:ense has &een committe, an that o&'ects sought in connection with theo:ense are in the place sought to &e searche!F ?his pro&a&le cause must &e shown to&e within the personal knowlege o the complainant or the witnesses he ma( proucean not &ase on mere hearsa(! ?hus, or a %ali search warrant to issue, there must &epro&a&le cause, which is to &e etermine personall( &( the 'uge, ater eaminationuner oath or aBrmation o the complainant an the witnesses he ma( prouce, anparticularl( escri&ing the place to &e searche an the persons or things to &e sei"e! ?he pro&a&le cause must &e in connection with one specifc o:ense,an the 'uge must&eore issuing the warrant, personall( eamine in the orm o searching 8uestions ananswers, in writing an uner oath, the complainant an an( witness he ma( prouce,on acts personall( known to them an attach to the recor their sworn statementstogether with an( aBa%its su&mitte! erein, in his application or search warrant,



<a'or Allain Dimagmaliw state that Fhe has &een inormeF that /emesio ruenteFhas in his control an possessionF the frearms an eplosi%es escri&e therein, anthat he Fhas %erife the report an oun it to &e a act!F )n the other han, in hissupporting eposition, t! 9lorenio C! Angeles eclare that, as a result o theircontinuous sur%eillance or se%eral a(s, the( Fgathere inormations rom %erifesourcesF that the holers o the sai frearms an eplosi%es are not license to possessthem! n other wors, the applicant an his witness ha no personal knowlege o theacts an circumstances which &ecame the &asis or issuing the 8uestione search

warrant, &ut ac8uire knowlege thereo onl( through inormation rom other sources orpersons! #hile it is true that in his application or search warrant, applicant <a'orDimagmaliw state that he %erife the inormation he ha earlier recei%e thatpetitioner ha in his possession an custo( the frearms an eplosi%es escri&e in theapplication, an that he oun it to &e a act, (et there is nothing in the recor to show orinicate how an when sai applicant %erife the earlier inormation ac8uire &( him asto 'usti( his conclusion that he oun such inormation to &e a act! e might ha%eclarife this point i there ha &een searching 8uestions an answers, &ut there werenone! n act, the recors (iel no 8uestions an answers, whether searching or not, %is@a@%is the sai applicant! L%ientl(, the allegations containe in the application o <a'orAllain Dimagmaliw an the eclaration o t! 9lorenio C! Angeles in his eposition

were insuBcient &asis or the issuance o a %ali search warrant!

Chia s. Ac'in C"llec'"r "3 C)s'"&s

#ACTS$ Acting on a %erife report o a confential inormant that assorte electronican electrical e8uipment an other articles illegall( importe into the hilippines &( as(nicate engage in unlawul FshipsieF acti%ities 0oreign goos are unloae romoreign ships in transit through hilippine waters into motori"e &ancas an lane onhilippine soil without passing through the ureau o Customs, there&( e%aing pa(mento the corresponing customs uties an taes thereon1 were oun insie F?om>sLlectronicsF an FSon( <erchanising 0hilippines1F stores locate at J-* an J-6on"alo u(at corner L%angelista Street, Puiapo, <anila, a letter@re8uest ate 23 April-7J was aresse to the Collector o Customs &( the Deput( Director o the RegionalAnti@Smuggling Action Center, <anila a( Area 0RASAC@<A1 or the issuance o warrantso sei"ure an etention! Ater e%aluation, the Collector o Customs issue #arrants oSei"ure an Detention 4-25 an 4-25@A, irecting the Anti@Smuggling Action Center tosei"e the goos mentione therein, i!e! %arious electronic e8uipments like cassette taperecorers, car stereos, phonograph neeles 0iamon1, porta&le ?; sets, importe longpla(ing recors, spare parts o ?;s an raios an other electrical appliances! A RASACteam was orme an gi%en a mission orer to enorce the warrants, which itimplemente with the assistance oO 01 the /ational Customs olice 0augmenting theteam with 2 mem&ers1, 021 the Detecti%e ureau o the <anila #estern olice Districtea8uarters 0with 3 etecti%es1, as well as, 031 recinct 3 o the <anila #estern oliceDistrict which eercise 'urisictional control o%er the place to &e raie! ?he intenerai was entere in the respecti%e police &lotters o the police etecti%e &ureaus! )n thestrength o the warrants o sei"ure an etention, the rai was conucte in theaternoon o 25 April -7J at the 2 stores o ?omas Chia! ASAC team leaer 6ener Sula,together with his agents aron Do&li, Arturo <anuel, Roolo <olina an Ser%illano



9lorentin o Camp Aguinalo, Pue"on Cit(, assiste &( two customs policemen, ;a<artine" an Renato Sorima, an <anila policemen Rogelio ;inas an +ohn eralta,reco%ere rom the stores, assorte electronic e8uipment an other articles, the customsuties on which allegel( ha not &een pai! ?he( were turne o%er to the CustomsAuction an Cargo Disposal =nit o the ureau o Customs! )n 7 <a( -7J, in theaternoon, the hearing oBcer o Acting Collector o Customs Alreo 9rancisco conuctea hearing on the confscation o the goos taken &( 6ener Sula an his agents! 2 a(slater, Chia fle the petition or certiorari, prohi&ition an manamus &eore the Supreme

Court to en'oin the Collector o Customs anor his agents rom urther proceeing withthe oreiture hearing an pra(e that the search warrants &e eclare null an %oi,that the latter &e orere to return the confscate articles to Chia, an to pa( amages!

ISSUE$ #hether the warrants issue &( the Collector o Customs partakes the nature oa general warrants, an thus are in%ali!

HE%D$ /ot onl( ma( goos &e sei"e without a search an sei"ure warrant unerSection 253J o the Customs an ?ari: Coe, when the( 0the goos1 are openl( o:ereor sale or kept in storage in a store as herein, &ut the act is that Chia>s stores F?om>sLlectronicsF an FSon( <erchanising 0hil!1F were searche upon warrants o search

an etention issue &( the Collector o Customs, who, uner the -73 Constitution, wasFa responsi&le oBcer authori"e &( lawF to issue them! Sections 22*. an 22*- o the ?ari: an Customs Coe pro%ie when a search ma( &e mae without a warrant anwhen a warrant is necessar(! Section 22*. pro%ies that F9or the more e:ecti%eischarge o his oBcial uties, an( person eercising the powers herein conerre, ma(at an( time enter, pass through or search an( lan or inclosure or an( warehouse, storeor other &uiling, not &eing a welling house! A warehouse, store or other &uiling orinclosure use or the keeping or storage o articles oes not &ecome a welling housewithin the meaning hereo merel( &( reason o the act that a person emplo(e aswatchman li%es in the place, nor will the act that his amil( sta(s there with him alterthe case!F )n the other han, Section 22*- pro%ies that FA welling house ma( &eentere an searche onl( upon warrant issue &( a +uge o the court or such otherresponsi&le oBcers as ma( &e authori"e &( law, upon sworn application showingpro&a&le cause an particularl( escri&ing the place to &e searche an the person orthing to &e sei"e!F ?he warrants issue &( the Collector o Customs in this case werenot general warrants or the( ientife the stores to &e searche, escri&e the articlesto &e sei"e an specife the pro%ision o the ?ari: an Customs Coe %iolate! =pone:ecting the sei"ure o the goos, the ureau o Customs ac8uire eclusi%e 'urisictionnot onl( o%er the case &ut also o%er the goos sei"e or the purpose o enorcing thetari: an customs laws! 9urther, a part( issatisfe with the ecision o the Collectorma( appeal to the Commissioner o Customs, whose ecision is appeala&le to the Courto ?a Appeals in the manner an within the perio prescri&e &( law an regulations ?he ecision o the Court o ?a Appeals ma( &e ele%ate to the Supreme Court orre%iew! Since Chia i not ehaust his aministrati%e remeies, his recourse to this Courtis premature!

<='h Cen')r9 #"> #il& C"rp"ra'i"n s. C")r' "3 Appeals



#ACTS$ n a letter@complaint ate 2J August -.5, 2*th Centur( 9o 9ilm Corporationthrough counsel sought the /ational ureau o n%estigation>s 0/1 assistance in theconuct o searches an sei"ures in connection with the />s anti@flm pirac( campaignSpecifcall(, the letter@complaint allege that certain %ieotape outlets all o%er <etro<anila are engage in the unauthori"e sale an renting out o cop(righte flms in%ieotape orm which constitute a Kagrant %iolation o resiential Decree 4- 0Decree onthe rotection o ntellectual ropert(1! Acting on the letter@complaint, the / conuctesur%eillance an in%estigation o the outlets pinpointe &( the flm corporation an

su&se8uentl( fle 3 applications or search warrants against the %ieo outlets owne &(Luaro <! arreto, Raul Sagullo, an 9ortune eesma! ?he applications wereconsoliate an hear &( the Regional ?rial Court 0R?C1 o <akati, ranch 32! )n 4Septem&er -.5, the lower court issue the esire search warrants, escri&ing thearticles sought to &e sei"e asF0c1 ?ele%ision sets, ;ieo Cassettes Recorers, rewinerstape hea cleaners, accessories, e8uipments an other machines use or intene to &euse in the unlawul reprouction, sale, rentallease, istri&ution o the a&o%e@mentione%ieo tapes which she is keeping an concealing in the premises a&o%e@escri&e!FArme with the search warrants, the / accompanie &( the flm corporation>s agents,raie the %ieo outlets an sei"e the items escri&e therein! An in%entor( o theitems sei"e was mae an let with arreto, et! al! Acting on a motion to lit search

warrants an release sei"e properties fle &( arreto, et! al!, the lower court issue anorer ate . )cto&er -.5, liting the 3 search warrants issue earlier against them &(the court, ue to the ailure o the / to eli%er the articles to the Court, an thusorere the return o the articles to their respecti%e owners! ?he lower court enie amotion or reconsieration fle &( the flm corporation in its orer ate 2 +anuar( -.J! ?he flm corporation fle a petition or certiorari with the Court o Appeals to annul theorers o the lower court! ?he petition was ismisse! ?he 2*th Centur( 9o 9ilmCorporation fle the petition or re%iew with the Supreme Court!

ISSUE$ #hether the inclusion o certain articles o propert( which are usuall( connecteto legitimate &usiness, an not in%ol%ing pirac( o intellectual propert( or inringement ocop(right laws, reners the warrant to &e unreasona&le!

HE%D$ ?ele%ision sets, %ieo cassette recorers, rewiners an tape cleaners are articleswhich can &e oun in a %ieo tape store engage in the legitimate &usiness o leningor renting out &etama tapes! n short, these articles an appliances are generall(connecte with, or relate to a legitimate &usiness not necessaril( in%ol%ing pirac( ointellectual propert( or inringement o cop(right laws! ence, incluing these articleswithout specifcation anor particularit( that the( were reall( instruments in %iolating anAnti@irac( law makes the search warrant too general which coul result in theconfscation o all items oun in an( %ieo store! n act, this actuall( happene in thepresent case! Although the applications an warrants themsel%es co%ere certain articleso propert( usuall( oun in a %ieo store, the Court &elie%es that the search part(shoul ha%e confne themsel%es to articles that are accoring to them, e%ienceconstituti%e o inringement o cop(right laws or the pirac( o intellectual propert(, &utnot to other articles that are usuall( connecte with, or relate to, a legitimate &usinessnot in%ol%ing pirac( o intellectual propert(, or inringement o cop(right laws! So that atele%ision set, a rewiner, an a white&oar listing etama tapes, %ieo cassette



cleaners %ieo cassette recorers as reKecte in the Returns o Search #arrants, areitems o legitimate &usiness engage in the %ieo tape inustr(, an which coul not &ethe su&'ect o sei"ure! ?he applicant an his agents thereore eceee their authorit( insei"ing perectl( legitimate personal propert( usuall( oun in a %ieo cassette store or&usiness esta&lishment! ?he search an sei"ure is unreasona&le!

N"lasc" s. Cr)* Pan"

#ACTS$ rior to J August -.4, <ila Aguilar@Ro8ue was one o the accuse o Re&ellion inCriminal Case S<C@@ &eore Special <ilitar( Commission , an also one o theaccuse o Su&%ersion in Criminal Case <C@25@3 o <ilitar( Commission 25, &oth cases&eing entitle Feople o the hilippines %s! +ose <a! Sison, et al!F She was then still atlarge! At aroun -O** a!m! on August J, t! Col! ;irgilio 6! Sala'eno o the CS6, applieor a Search #arrant rom the on! Lrnani Cru" aUo, Lecuti%e +uge o the Regiona ?rial Court in Pue"on Cit(, to &e ser%e at /o! 23-@ <a(on Street, Pue"on Cit(

etermine to &e the lease resience o Aguilar@Ro8ue, ater almost a month o Frounthe clock sur%eillanceF o the premises as a Fsuspecte unergroun house o theC/A!F Aguilar@Ro8ue has &een long wante &( the militar( or &eing a high rankingoBcer o the Communist art( o the hilippines, particularl( connecte with the <;QaragatanDoUa Anrea cases! At O3* a!m!, Aguilar@Ro8ue an C(nthia D! /olasco werearreste &( a Consta&ular( Securit( 6roup 0CS61 at the intersection o <a(on Street an! <argall Street, Pue"on Cit(! ?he recor oes not isclose that a warrant o arrest hapre%iousl( &een issue against /olasco! At 2O** noon on the same a(, elements o theCS6 searche the premises at 23-@ <a(on Street, Pue"on Cit(! #illie C! ?olentino, aperson then in charge o the premises, was arreste &( the searching part( presuma&l(without a warrant o arrest! ?he searching part( sei"e 42. ocuments an writtenmaterials, an aitionall( a porta&le t(pewriter, an 2 wooen &oes, making 43 itemsin all! )n August *, Aguilar@Ro8ue, /olasco an ?olentino, were charge &eore thePue"on Cit( 9iscal>s )Bce upon complaint fle &( the CS6 against the ormer orFSu&%ersionRe&ellion anor Conspirac( to Commit Re&ellionSu&%ersion! )n August 3the Cit( 9iscal fle an normation or ;iolation o resiential Decree 0D1 33 0llegaossession o Su&%ersi%e Documents1 against Aguilar@Ro8ue, et! al! &eore ranch 42 othe <etropolitan ?rial Court o Pue"on Cit(, +uge Antonio ! Santos, presiing! )n AugustJ, CS6 fle a <otion or Reconsieration with the Cit( 9iscal, pra(ing that Aguilar@Ro8ue an /olasco &e charge with Su&%ersion! ?he <otion was enie on /o%em&erJ! )n Septem&er *, the CS6 su&mitte an Amene Return in the Search #arrantcase pra(ing, inter alia, that the CS6 &e allowe to retain the sei"e 43 ocuments anarticles, Fin connection with cases that are presentl( pening against <ila Aguilar Ro8ue&eore the Pue"on Cit( 9iscal>s )Bce an the court!F )n Decem&er 3, +uge aUoamitte the Amene Return an rule that the sei"e ocuments Fshall &e su&'ect toisposition o the tri&unal tr(ing the case against responent!F A a( &eore that, Aguilar@Ro8ue, et! al! fle a <otion to Suppress, pra(ing that such o the 43 items &elonging tothem &e returne to them! t was claime that the proceeings uner the Search #arrantwere unlawul! +uge Santos enie the <otion on 7 +anuar( -.5 on the groun that the%aliit( o the Search #arrant has to &e litigate in the other case, apparentl( unawareo the )rer issue &( +uge aUo on Decem&er 3! /olasco, Aguilar@Ro8ue, an ?olentino fle the etition or Certiorari, rohi&ition an <anamus to annul an set



asie the 01 Search #arrant issue &( R?C +uge aUoE 021 his )rer amitting theAmene Return an granting the <otion to Retain Sei"e temsE an 031 )rer o <?C +uge Santos en(ing Aguilar@Ro8ue, et! al!>s <otion to Suppress!

ISSUE$ #hether the escription o the personalities to &e sei"e in the search warrant istoo general to rener the warrant %oi!

HE%D$ ?he ispute Search #arrant 0.*@.41 escri&es the personalities to &e sei"e as

FDocuments, papers an other recors o the Communist art( o the hilippines/eweoples Arm( anor the /ational Democratic 9ront, such as <inutes o the art(<eetings, lans o these groups, rograms, ist o possi&le supporters, su&%ersi%e &ooksan instructions, manuals not otherwise a%aila&le to the pu&lic, an support mone( romoreign or local sources!F t is at once e%ient that the Search #arrant authori"es thesei"ure o personal properties %aguel( escri&e an not particulari"e! t is an allem&racing escription which inclues e%er(thing concei%a&le regaring the Communistart( o the hilippines an the /ational Democratic 9ront! t oes not speci( what thesu&%ersi%e &ooks an instructions areE what the manuals not otherwise a%aila&le to thepu&lic contain to make them su&%ersi%e or to ena&le them to &e use or the crime ore&ellion! ?here is a&sent a efnite guieline to the searching team as to what items

might &e lawull( sei"e thus gi%ing the oBcers o the law iscretion regaring whatarticles the( shoul sei"e as, in act, taken also were a porta&le t(pewriter an 2 wooen&oes! t is thus in the nature o a general warrant an inringes on the constitutionalmanate re8uiring particular escription o the things to &e sei"e! Search warrants osimilar escription were consiere null an %oi or &eing too general! /otwithstaningthe irregular issuance o the Search #arrant an although, orinaril(, the articles sei"euner an in%ali search warrant shoul &e returne, the( cannot &e orere returne toAguilar@Ro8ue! Some searches ma( &e mae without a warrant! Section 2, Rule 2J,Rules o Court, is eclarator( in the sense that it is confne to the search, without asearch warrant, o a person who ha &een arreste! t is also a general rule that, as anincient o an arrest, the place or premises where the arrest was mae can also &esearch without a search warrant! n this latter case, Fthe etent an reasona&leness othe search must &e ecie on its own acts an circumstances, an it has &een statethat, in the application o general rules, there is some conusion in the ecisions as towhat constitutes the etent o the place or premises which ma( &e searcheFConsiering that Aguilar@Ro8ue has &een charge with Re&ellion, which is a crime againstpu&lic orerE that the warrant or her arrest has not &een ser%e or a consiera&leperio o timeE that she was arreste within the general %icinit( o her wellingE an thatthe search o her welling was mae within a hal hour o her arrest, the Court was o theopinion that, in her respect, the search at /o! 23-@ <a(on Street, Pue"on Cit(, i notnee a search warrantE this, or possi&le e:ecti%e results in the interest o pu&lic orerSuch &eing the case, the personalities sei"e ma( &e retaine &( CS6, or possi&leintrouction as e%ience in the Re&ellion Case, lea%ing it to Aguilar@Ro8ue to o&'ect totheir rele%ance an to ask Special <ilitar( Commission to return to her an( alirrele%ant ocuments an articles!

PIC5P s. As)nci"n



#ACTS$ )n 25 +anuar( --5, olice Chie nspector /apoleon ! ascua applie or asearch warrant &eore the Regional ?rial Court 0R?C1, ranch *4, o Pue"on Cit(, statingF01 that the management o aper nustries Corporation o the hilippines, locate atC) compoun, aranga( ?a&on, islig, Surigao el Sur, represente &( its Sr! ;iceresient Ricaro 6! Santiago, is in possession or has in its control high powerefrearms, ammunitions, eplosi%es, which are the su&'ect o the o:ense, or use orintene to &e use in committing the o:ense, an which are &eing kept an concealein the premises herein escri&eE 021 that a Search #arrant shoul &e issue to ena&le

an( agent o the law to take possession an &ring to this onora&le Court the ollowingescri&e propertiesO >Se%ent( 07*1 <J Armalite riKes cal! 5!5J, ten 0*1 <J =S riKes,two 021 AQ@47 riKesT, two 021 =H su&machinegunsT, two 021 <2*3 6renae aunchersTcal 4*mm!, ten 0*1 cal! 45 pistolsT, ten 0*1 cal! 3. re%ol%ersT, two 021 ammunitionreloaing machinesT, assorte ammunitions or sai cali&ers o frearms an ten 0*1hangrenaes!>F ?he 'oint Deposition o S)3 Cicero S! acolo an S)2 Cecilio ?<orito, as well as a summar( o the inormation an the supplementar( statements o<ario Lna an 9elipe <oreno were attache to the application! Ater propouningse%eral 8uestions to acolo, +uge <aimiano C! Asuncion issue the conteste searchwarrant! )n 4 9e&ruar( --5, the police enorce the search warrant at the C)compoun an sei"e %arious frearms an ammunition! elie%ing that the warrant was

in%ali an the search unreasona&le, aper nustries Corporation o the hilippines,L%aristo <! /ar%ae" +r!, Ricaro 6! Santiago, Ro&erto A! Dormeno, Re(ane DA"ucena, /iceoro ;! A%ila, 9lorentino <! <ula, 9eli )! aito, arol ! Celestial,Llmeencio C! Calitro, Carlito S! egacion, Al&ino ?! u&ang, +eremias ! A&a anerminio ;! ;illamil fle a F<otion to PuashF J &eore the trial court! Su&se8uentl(,the( also fle a FSupplemental leaing to the <otion to PuashF an a F<otion toSuppress L%ience!F )n 23 <arch --5, the R?C issue the )rer which enie C),et! al!>s motions! )n 3 August --5, the trial court renere its )rer en(ing their<otion or Reconsieration! C), et! al! fle a etition or Certiorari an rohi&ition!

ISSUE$ #hether the act that the warrant ientifes onl( one place, i!e! the Fapernustries Corporation o the hilippines, locate at C) Compoun, aranga( ?a&on,islig, Surigao el Sur,F satisfes the re8uirements o the particularit( o the place to &esearch, an thus rener the warrant %ali!

HE%D$ /o! ?he unamental right against unreasona&le searches an sei"ures an the&asic conitions or the issuance o a search warrant are lai own in Section 2, Article o the -.7 Constitution! Consistent with the oregoing constitutional pro%ision, Sections3 an 4, Rule 2J o the Rules o Court, etail the re8uisites or the issuance o a %alisearch warrant! ?he re8uisites o a %ali search warrant areO 01 pro&a&le cause ispresentE 021 such presence is etermine personall( &( the 'ugeE 031 the complainantan the witnesses he or she ma( prouce are personall( eamine &( the 'uge, inwriting an uner oath or aBrmationE 041 the applicant an the witnesses testi( on actspersonall( known to themE an 051 the warrant specifcall( escri&es the place to &esearche an the things to &e sei"e! n %iew o the maniest o&'ecti%e o theconstitutional saeguar against unreasona&le search, the Constitution an the Ruleslimit the place to &e searche onl( to those escri&e in the warrant! ?hus, this Courthas hel that Fthis constitutional right is the em&oiment o a spiritual conceptO the&elie that to %alue the pri%ac( o home an person an to a:or it constitutionaprotection against the long reach o go%ernment no less than to %alue human ignit(,an that his pri%ac( must not &e istur&e ecept in case o o%erriing social nee, anthen onl( uner stringent proceural saeguars!F Aitionall(, the re8uisite o



particularit( is relate to the pro&a&le cause re8uirement in that, at least uner somecircumstances, the lack o a more specifc escription will make it apparent that therehas not &een a suBcient showing to the magistrate that the escri&e items are to &eoun in a particular place! erein, the search warrant is in%ali &ecause 01 the triacourt aile to eamine personall( the complainant an the other eponentsO 021 S)3Cicero acolo, who appeare uring the hearing or the issuance o the search warrant,ha no personal knowlege that C), et! al! were not license to possess the su&'ectfrearmsE an 031 the place to &e searche was not escri&e with particularit(! As to the

particularit( o the place to &e searche, the assaile search warrant aile to escri&ethe place with particularit(! t simpl( authori"es a search o Fthe aorementionepremises,F &ut it i not speci( such premises! ?he warrant ientifes onl( one place,an that is the Faper nustries Corporation o the hilippines, locate at C)Compoun, aranga( ?a&on, islig, Surigao el Sur!F ?he C) compoun, howe%er, ismae up o F2** oBces&uilings, 5 plants, .4 sta: houses, airstrip, 3 pierswhar%es23 warehouses, J ) epots8uick ser%ice outlets an some .** miscellaneousstructures, all o which sprea out o%er some one hunre ft(@f%e hectares!F )&%iousl(,the warrant gi%es the police oBcers un&rile an thus illegal authorit( to search all thestructures oun insie the C) compoun! ecause the search warrant was procurein %iolation o the Constitution an the Rules o Court, all the frearms, eplosi%es an

other materials sei"e were Finamissi&le or an( purpose in an( proceeing!F

:")se3 Al-(h")l s. C")r' "3 Appeals

#ACTS$ )n 3 <arch --5, +uge 6eronimo S! <anga(, presiing 'uge o the Regional ?rial Court, /ational Capital +uicial Region, ranch 25, Qalookan Cit(, issue searchwarrants 54@-5 an 55@-5 or the search an sei"ure o certain items in Apartment 2 at54 )&iniana Compoun, Deparo Roa, Qalookan Cit(! )n April --5, the policesearche Apartment ., in the same compoun an oun one 01 !45 cali&er pistol! 9ounin Apartment 2 were 2 <@J riKes with 2 maga"ines an 2* li%e <@J ammunitions, aro emolition charge, Cali&er istol with no! J34 an other nos! were place withmaga"ine o Cali&er !45 an 3 li%e 45 ammunitions, 22 Cali&er hangun with 5 li%eammunitions in its c(liner, o containing 4* pieces o !25 cali&er ammunitions, 2pieces o ragmentation grenae, roll o etonating cor color (ellow, 2 &ig &ags oammonium nitrate suspecte to &e eplosi%es su&stance, 22 etonating cors with&lasting caps, Y an Z poun o high eplosi%es ?/?, timer alarm clock, 2 &ags osuspecte gun power, 2 small plastic &ag o suspecte eplosi%e su&stance, small &oo plastic &ag o suspecte (namites, )ne weighing scale, an 2 &atteries - %olts with&lasting caps an etonating cor! ?he frearms, ammunitions, eplosi%es an otherinceniar( e%ices sei"e at the apartments were acknowlege in the receipt signe &(S)2 <elanio e la Cru"! Xouse Al 6houl, sam <ohamma A&ulhai, #ail Rashi Al@Qhati&, /a&eel /asser Al@Ri(ami, Ashra assam Al@Xa"ori, an <ohamma A&ushenwere charge &eore the Regional ?rial Court o Qalookan Cit(, ranch 23, ininormations 0Criminal Cases [email protected]@J71 accusing them with illegal possession ofrearms, ammunitions an eplosi%es, pursuant to resiential Decree .JJ! ?hereater,the( were arreste an etaine! ?he( fle a motion or &ail on 24 <a( --5, theresolution o which was hel in a&e(ance &( the R?C pening the presentation oe%ience rom the prosecution to etermine whether or not the e%ience presente isstrong! )n 7 9e&ruar( --J, at the hearing or &ail, the R?C Famitte all ehi&its &eingo:ere or whate%er purpose that the( ma(&e worthF ater the prosecution ha fnishe



aucing its e%ience espite the o&'ection &( the petitioners on the amissi&ilit( o saie%ience! )n - 9e&ruar( --J, the R?C enie their motion or &ail earlier fle! As theiraction &eore appellate court also pro%e utile, with the appellate court ismissing theirspecial ci%il action or certiorari, the( fle the petition or re%iew &eore the SupremeCourt!

ISSUE$ #hether the search an sei"ure orers are %ali, an the o&'ects sei"eamissi&le in e%ience!

HE%D$ As hel in C) %! Asuncion, the place to &e searche cannot &e change,enlarge nor amplife &( the police! olicemen ma( not &e restraine rom pursuingtheir task with %igor, &ut in oing so, care must &e taken that constitutional an legasaeguars are not isregare! Lclusion o unlawull( sei"e e%ience is the onl(practical means o enorcing the constitutional in'unction against unreasona&le searchesan sei"ures! ence, the search mae at Apartment /o! . is illegal an the !45 cali&erpistol taken thereat is inamissi&le in e%ience against Al@6houl, et! al! n contrast, thesearch conucte at Apartment 2 coul not &e similarl( aulte! ?he search warrantsspecifcall( mentione Apartment 2! ?he search was one in the presence o itsoccupants, in accorance with Section 7 o Rule 2J, Re%ise Rules o Court! ?he articles

sei"e uring the search o Apartment 2 are o the same kin an nature as those itemsenumerate in the search warrant! ?he items sei"e rom Apartment 2 were escri&ewith specifcit( in the warrants in 8uestion! ?he nature o the items orere to &e sei"ei not re8uire a technical escription! <oreo%er, the law oes not re8uire that the thingsto &e sei"e must &e escri&e in precise an minute etails as to lea%e no room orou&t on the part o the searching authorities, otherwise, it woul &e %irtuall( impossi&leor the applicants to o&tain a search warrant as the( woul not know eactl( what kino things the( are looking or! )nce escri&e, howe%er, the articles su&'ect o the searchan sei"ure nee not &e so in%ariant as to re8uire a&solute concorance &etween thosesei"e an those escri&e in the warrant! Su&stantial similarit( o those articlesescri&e as a class or species woul suBce!

Objects of ei!ure

UNI%A/, INC. s. ERNEST5 ISIP

#ACTSO =/A hire a pri%ate in%estigator to in%estigate a place purporte to &emanuacturing ake =/A proucts, especiall( Re%icon multi%itamins! ?he agent tooksome photographs where the clanestine manuacturing operation was taking place=/A then sought the help o the /, which thereater fle an application or theissuance o search warrant in the R?C o <anila! Ater fning pro&a&le cause, the courtissue a search warrant irecting the police to sei"e Gfnishe or unfnishe proucts o=/A, particularl( RL;C)/ multi%itamins!I /o ake Re%icon was howe%er ouninstea, seale &oes where sei"e, which, when opene containe J* ml &ottles oDisurin an 2**mg ta&lets o noKo, &oth were &rans use &( =/A! / pra(ethat some o the si"e items &e turne o%er to the custo( o the ureau o 9oo anDrugs 09AD1 or eamination! ?he court grante the motion! ?he responents then flea motion to 8uash the search warrant or to suppress e%ience, alleging that the sei"e



items are consiere to &e ruit o a poisonous tree, an thereore inamissi&le or an(purpose in an( proceeing, which the petitioners oppose alleging that the &oes oDisurin an noKo were sei"e uner the plain %iew octrine! ?he court, howe%er,grante the motion o the responents!

ISSUE$ #hether or not the sei"ure o the seale &oes which, when opene, containeDisurin s(rup an noKo, were %ali uner the plain %iew octrine!

HE%D$ t is true that things not escri&e in the warrant ma( &e sei"e uner the plain%iew octrine! owe%er, sei"e things not escri&e in the warrant cannot &e presumeas plain %iew! ?he State must auce e%ience to pro%e that the elements or theoctrine to appl( are present, namel(O 0a1 the eecuting law enorcement oBcer has aprior 'ustifcation or an initial intrusion or otherwise properl( in a position rom which hecan %iew a particular orerE 0&1 the oBcer must isco%er incriminating e%ienceina%ertentl(E an 0c1 it must &e immeiatel( apparent to the police that the items the(o&ser%e ma( &e e%ience o a crime, contra&an, or otherwise su&'ect to sei"ure

t was thus incum&ent on the / an the petitioner to pro%e that the items were sei"eon plain %iew! t is not enough that the seale &oes were in the plain %iew o the /

agents! owe%er, the / aile to present an( o oBcers who were present when thewarrant was enorce to pro%e that the the seale &oes was isco%ere ina%ertentl(,an that such &oes an their contents were incriminating an immeiatel( apparent! tmust &e stresse that onl( the enorcing oBcers ha personal knowlege whether theseale &oes an their contents thereo were incriminating an that the( wereimmeiatel( apparent! ?here is e%en no showing that the / agents knew the contentso the seale &oes &eore the( were opene! n sum then, the petitioner an the /aile to pro%e that the plain %iew octrine applies to the sei"e items!

;a'* . Uni'ed S'a'es, @ U.S. B 12

#ACTS$ ?he petitioner, Charles Qat", was charge with conucting illegal gam&lingoperations across state lines in %iolation o eeral law! n orer to collect e%ienceagainst Qat", eeral agents place a warrantless wiretap on the pu&lic phone &ooth thathe use to conuct these operations! ?he agents listene onl( to Qat">s con%ersations,an onl( to the parts o his con%ersations ealing with illegal gam&ling transactions!

n the case o )lmstea %! =nite States 0-2.1, the Supreme Court hel that thewarrantless wiretapping o phone lines i not constitute an unreasona&le search unerthe 9ourth Amenment! Accoring to the Court, ph(sical intrusion 0a trespass1 into agi%en area, an not mere %oice amplifcation 0the normal result o a wiretap1, is re8uireor an action to constitute a 9ourth Amenment search! ?his is known as the Ftrespassoctrine!F artl( in response to this ecision, Congress passe the 9eeraCommunications Act o -33! ?his Act re8uire, among other things, eeral authoritiesto o&tain a warrant &eore wiretapping pri%ate phone lines! n the case o Sil%erman %!=nite States 0-J1, the Supreme Court refne the )lmstea trespass octrine &(holing that an unreasona&le search occurs onl( i a Fconstitutionall( protecte areaF has&een intrue upon!



At his trial, Qat" sought to eclue an( e%ience connecte with these wiretaps, arguingthat the warrantless wiretapping o a pu&lic phone &ooth constitutes an unreasona&lesearch o a Fconstitutionall( protecte areaF in %iolation o the 9ourth Amenment! ?heeeral agents countere &( sa(ing that a pu&lic phone &ooth was not a Fconstitutionall(protecte area,F thereore, the( coul place a wiretap on it without a warrant!

ISSUEO#hether o not the warrantless wiretapping o a pu&lic phone &ooth %iolate theunreasona&le search an sei"ure clause o the 9ourth Amenment to the =nite States

Constitution$

HE%D$ Xes! ( a 7@ %ote, the =!S! Supreme Court agree with Qat" an hel that placingo a warrantless wiretap on a pu&lic phone &ooth constitutes an unreasona&le search in%iolation o the 9ourth Amenment! ?he ma'orit( opinion, written &( +ustice otterStewart, howe%er, i not aress the case rom the perspecti%e o a Fconstitutionall(protecte area!F n essence, the ma'orit( argue that &oth sies in the case were wrongto think that the permissi&ilit( o a warrantless wiretap epene upon the area &eingplace uner sur%eillance! F9or the 9ourth Amenment protects people, not places! #hata person knowingl( eposes to the pu&lic, e%en in his own home or oBce, is not asu&'ect o 9ourth Amenment protection ! ! ! ! ut what he seeks to preser%e as pri%ate

e%en in an area accessi&le to the pu&lic, ma( &e constitutionall( protecte,F the Courtstate!

uiling upon this reasoning, the Court hel that it was the ut( o the +uiciar( tore%iew petitions or warrants in instances in which persons ma( &e engaging in conuctthat the( wish to keep secret, e%en i it were one in a pu&lic place! ?he Court hel that,in the a&sence o a 'uiciall( authori"e search warrant, the wiretaps o the pu&lic phone&ooth use &( Qat" were illegal! ?hereore, the e%ience against him gathere rom hiscon%ersations shoul &e suppresse!

Arrest, Search and Seizure (a-e)

Documents

Transcript of Arrest, Search and Seizure (a-e)