Searches and Seizures

Zyra Cuevas

Can police officers confiscate anything in violation of law? May it be used in evidence? Police officers may confiscate articles that are subject to search and seizure (object of the offense, fruit or proceeds, used or about to be used as a means of committing an offense). They may also confiscate articles prohibited by the law, but they are inadmissible as evidence if such was not conducted under a valid warrantless search and seizure. (see 10 instances)

Is a search warrant a sweeping authority?

No. According to People vs Del Rosario, a search warrant is not a sweeping authority empowering the raiding party to undertake a fishing expedition to seize and confiscate any and all kinds of evidence relating to a crime. This is so because the Constitution specifically mandates that the search warrant must particularly describe the things to be seized.

Reasonable arrest without a warrant

In flagrante delicto, Hot pursuit, Escape of prisoner or detainee, In cases of continuing offense, When the right is waived by the person arrested, knowing that he knew of such right and decided not to invoke it.

What is the meaning of in his presence?

As defined in People vs. Sucro, an offense is committed in the presence of an officer, within the meaning of the rule authorizing a warrantless arrest, when the officer sees the offense, although at a distance or hears the disturbances created thereby and proceeds at once to the scene thereof.

Why in the new rule it says probable cause based on personal knowledge?

Because reliable information alone or hearsay is not sufficient to justify a valid warrantless arrest. The officer must have personal knowledge of the overt acts of the accused which indicate that he has,is, or was about to commit an offense.

Under the new rule (Rule 113, Section 5), is personal knowledge required?

Is 6 days tantamount to has just been committed How about several hourse? Crime committed in the morning, arrest in the evening? How about in hot pursuit? No. There, must be a large measure of immediacy between the time the offense was committed an the time of the arrest and if there was an appreciable lapse of time between the arrest and the commission of the crime, a warrant of arrest must be secured. Aside from the sense of immediacy, it is also mandatory that the person making the arrest has personal

Searches and Seizures

Zyra Cuevas

knowledge of certain facts indicating that the person to be taken into custody has committed the crime.

What are the requirements that evidence may be seen in plain view? Under the plain view doctrine, the objects seized must be within the sight of an officer who has a right to be in a position to have that view. Four elements must concur: First, there must have been a prior valid intrusion based on a valid warrantless arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties. Second, the evidence was inaverdently discovered by the police who have a right to be where they are. Third, the evidence must be immediately apparent. And Fourth, the plain view justified the mere seizure of evidence without further search.

What are the two objectives of stop and frisk? A "stop-and-frisk" serves a two-fold interest: (1) the general interest of effective crime prevention and detection, which underlies the recognition that a police officer may, under appropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner, approach a person for purposes of investigating possible criminal behavior even without probable cause; and (2) the more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation which permit the police officer to take steps to assure himself that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon that could unexpectedly and fatally be used against the police officer.

People vs Mengote Police received a call from informer that there were suspicious men at an area. A surveillance team was dipatched. The said men were seen to have been looking from side to side and one of them was holding his abdomen. When the policemen identified themselves, the men tried to run away but were captured. A weapon was found in their person, which was identified as one of the articles stolen from a man during a robbery. However, there was nothing to support the arresting officers suspicion.

What is the yardstick in determining probable cause? Probable cause determined by a trained or experienced officer.

What is the extent in seaching moving vehicles? The search would be valid provided that they are made at constructive borders or checkpoints. For a mere routine inspection, the search is permissible if it is limited only to a mere visual search where the occupants are not subjected to a physical or body search. An extensive search is permissible only if the officers had probable cause to believe that the motorist is a law offender.

Bill of Rights-Against the State-People vs Marti

Searches and Seizures

Zyra Cuevas

The right against unreasonable search and seizure is a restraint upon the government. It does not apply so as to require the exclusion of evidence which came into the possession of the Government through a search made by a private citizen. The Bill of Rights does not protect citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures made by individuals.

Exclusionary Rule Evidence obtained in violation of Sec. 2, Article 3 shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding, because it is the fruit of the poisonous tree.

Is there a constitutional right against privacy?

Substance The nature of the conversations is immaterial to a violation of the statute. The substance of the same need not be specifically alleged in the information. What R.A. 4200 penalizes are the acts of secretly overhearing, intercepting or recording private communications by means of the devices enumerated therein. The mere allegation that an individual made a secret recording of a private communication by means of a tape recorder would suffice to constitute an offense under Section 1 of R.A. 4200.

What other zones of privacy are protected in the Constitution? Sec. 1 of Article 3: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.... and Sec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects againstunreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable

Ople vs Torres Ruling: AO 308 falls short of assuring that personal information which will be gathered about the people will only be processed for unequivocally unspecified purposes. The possibilities of abuse and misuse of technology is accentuated when the individual lacks control over what can be read or placed on his ID. (Liberty and abode, Self-incrimination, may pave the way for fishing expeditions, etc.)

Communication versus Conversation The word communicate comes from the latin word communicare, meaning "to share or to impart." In its ordinary signification, communication connotes the act of sharing or imparting signification, communicationconnotes the act of sharing or imparting, as in a conversation, 15 or signifies the "process by which meanings or thoughts are shared between individuals through a common system of symbols (as language signs or

Searches and Seizures

Zyra Cuevas

gestures). These definitions are broad enough to include verbal or non-verbal, written or expressive communications of "meanings or thoughts" which are likely to include the emotionally-charged exchange, between petitioner and private respondent, in the privacy of the latter's office. Any doubts about the legislative body's meaning of the phrase "private communication" are, furthermore, put to rest by the fact that the terms "conversation" and "communication" were interchangeably used by Senator Taada in his Explanatory Note to the bill.

R.A. 2400: Can it be violated by one who is privy to the communication? In Ramirez vs CA, it was stated that Section 1 of R.A. 4200 clearly and unequivocally makes it illegal for any person, not authorized by all the parties to any private communication to secretly record such communication by means of a tape recorder. The law makes no distinction as to whether the party sought to be penalized by the statute ought to be a party other than or different from those involved in the privatecommunication. The statutes intent to penalize all persons unauthorized to make such recording is underscored by the use of the qualifier any. Consequently, .even a (person) privy to a communication who records his private conversation with another without the knowledge of the latter (will) qualify as a violator under this provision of R.A. 4200.

Violation-extension phone/cellphone. Strict Construction? In Gaanan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, a case which dealt with the issue of telephone wiretapping, we held that the use of a telephone extension for the purpose of overhearing a private conversation without authorization did not violate R.A. 4200 because a telephone extension devise was neither among those "device(s) or arrangement(s)" enumerated therein, following the principle that "penal statutes must be construed strictly in favor of the accused." The statute itself explicitly mentions the unauthorized "recording" of private communications with the use of tape-recorders as among the acts punishable

Exclusionary/Non-Exclusionary

The Exclusionary Rule Principle (Remedial Law)- the principle which mandates that evidence obtained from an illegal arrest, unreasonable search or coercive investigation, or in violation of a particular law, must be excluded from the trial and will not be admitted as evidence. The principle judges the admissibility of evidence based on HOW the evidence is obtained or acquired and not WHAT the evidence proves. The principle is to be applied only if it is so expressly provided for by the constitution or by a particular law. Even if the manner of obtaining the evidence is in violation of a certain law but the law does not declare that the evidence is inadmissible, then such evidence will be admissible.
Sec. 4, Artlce 3, rights-mere coincidence, why?

Scope. What is the extent of freedom of expression?

Searches and Seizures

Zyra Cuevas

The freedom of expression includes not only the popular opinion but also the unorthodox view. The freedom to speak includes the right to be silent. Any and all modes of expression are embraced in the guaranty.

Are they identical? No, these rights are Separable.

Difference between Freedom of Expression and Speech

Ayer Productions versus Capulong. Is the right of freedom of expression available to them? The right of privacy or "the right to be let alone," like the right of free expression, is not an absolute right. A limited intrusion into a person's privacy has long been regarded as permissible where that person is a public figure and the information sought to be elicited from him or to be published about him constitute of apublic character. The right of privacy cannot be invoked resist publication and dissemination of matters of public interest. The interest sought to be protected by the right of privacy is the right to be free from unwarrantedpublicity, from the wrongful publicizing of the private affairs and activities of an individual which are outside the realm of legitimate public concern. Enrile was held as a public figure because of his participation as a principal actor in the culminating events of the change of government. Because his participation therein was major in character, a film reenactment that would fail to make reference to him would be grossly unhistorical.

What is the value of freedom of expression in a democratic government? As an individual particle of sovereignty, every citizen has a right to offer his views and suggestions in the discussion of the common problems of the community or the nation. This is not only a right but a duty.

Justice Holmes- Clear and Present Danger Rule

True Test of Constitutional Right?

US vs Bustos (Justice of the Peace was charged with malfeasance in office by citizens of Pampanga, not entitled to qualified privilege) The people have a right to scrutinize and comment or condemn the conduct of their chosen representatives in the government. As long as their comments are made in GOOD FAITH & WITH JUSTIFIABLE ENDS, they are insulated from

Searches and Seizures

Zyra Cuevas

prosecution or damage suits for defamation even if such views are found to be inaccurate or erroneous. A public officer must not be too thin-skinned with reference to comment upon his offical acts.

Is truth relevant in Freedom of Expression?

Does freedom of expression include attack to public officers? Judicial officers? The official acts and even the private life of a public servant are legitimate subjects of public comment. This is applicable to a public figure, like a candidate for public office. BUT public comment on pending litigation is proscribed, on the ground that it may interfere with the administration of justice. US vs Bustos: The guaranties of a free speech and a free press include the right to criticize judicial conduct. The administration of the law is a matter of vital public concern. Whether the law is wisely or badly enforced is, therefore, a fit subject for proper comment. If the people cannot criticize a justice of the peace or a judge the same as any other public officer, public opinion will be effectively muzzled. Attempted terrorization of public opinion on the part of the judiciary would be tyranny of the basest sort.

Is the respect accorded to judicial officers the same with public officers? No. Criticism of the courts in the absence of litigation or termination of a case may be done only as long as it is couched in a respectful language.

Private individuals involved in public issue? Yes.

What is a public figure? Reasons why a public figure enjoys lesser privacy. A public figure has been defined as a person who, by his accomplishments, fame, or mode of living, or by adopting a profession or calling which gives the public a legitimate interest in his doings, his affairs, and his character, has become a 'public personage.' He is, in other words, a celebrity. Obviously to be included in this category are those who have achieved some degree of reputation by appearing before the public. Such public figures were held to have lost, to some extent at least, their tight to privacy. Three reasons were given, more or less indiscrimately, in the decisions" that they had sought publicity and consented to it, and so could not complaint when they received it; that their personalities and their affairs has already public, and could no longer be regarded as their own private business; and that the press had a privilege, under the Constitution, to inform the public about those who have become legitimate matters of public interest.

What does a celebrity mean?

Searches and Seizures

Zyra Cuevas

A celebrity is one who seeks publicity and therefore becomes public property. It is the obligation of the press to inform the public of what may interest them. Constitutionality of an act is one thing, propriety is another.