Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
7:
required periodical submittal of sworn
statements of financial conditions, assets
THE RIGHT AGAINST UNREASONABLE and liabilities of an official or employee of
SEARCHES AND SEIZURES the government after he had once
i. A. What is “this” right? submitted such a sworn statement upon
It is the right to be left alone. assuming office.
(Liberty)
B. What other rights are anchored PETITIONER: violative of due process as an
to this right? oppressive exercise of police power and as
an unlawful invasion of the constitutional
1. Right to Due Process right to privacy implicit on the ban against
2. “Right” to Privacy
a. The privacy of
unreasonable search and seizure construed
communication and together with the prohibition against self-
correspondence shall incrimination
be inviolable except
upon lawful order of the RULING: Anti-Graft Act of 1960 –
court or when public Constitutional. There was no violation of
FACTS:
FACTS: The
Theaccused
accused was on board
appellant wenta to
safety and order require due process. There was no constitutional
otherwise. [Sec. 1(5), ship. On the sameagency
a forwarding ship, a woman who 4
to sphere.
send
intrusion into the personal The
Art. III. 1935 noticed
packagesher jewelry
to was missing
Switzerland. The
constitutional guarantee against
Constitution] suspected
proprietor the(a accused
private of stealing
person) the
opened
3. Protection against unreasonable
unreasonable search and seizure does not
same.
the 5boxes
members for offinal
the crew looked in
inspection
search and seizure [Sec. 1(3). give freedom from testimonial
for and subsequently
accordance with found
their thestandard
Art. III. 1935 Constitution] compulsion.
4. Liberty of Abode [Sec. 1(4). Art.
accused.
operating procedure. He took samples
III. 1935 Constitution] of the contents
Prosecution: Withto thethe NBI. Contents
consent of the
ii. 1935 v. 1987 were later found out to be marijuana
accused, the crew members searched
1935 flowering
What cannot be stressed his suitcase tops.
and found a brown bag
and smallAn plastic packs containing
Information was filed
white crystalline substance (suspected
against appellant for violation of the
shabu). TheyDrugs
Dangerous immediately
Act (RAinformed
6425).
the Coast Guard regarding the packets
which were Accused-appellant
later confirmed to contends
be
that the evidence subject of the
shabu.
imputed offense had been obtained in
Accused:
violationTheof crew forcibly openedrights
his constitutional
and searched
against the suitcase thereby
unreasonable search and
violating
seizure right against
and unreasonable
privacy of
search and seizure.
communication. This, he claims,
renders the evidence inadmissible.
RULING:
The accused was charged with a
LIBERTIES
violation MAY
of the BE INVOKED
Dangerous Drugs ActONLY
ofAGAINST
1972 THE STATE NOT UPON
PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS.
RULING: The right against
In this case, the liberties
unreasonable search and seizure mayguaranteed
by the
was Constitution
does not applycannot
because be invoked
in this
case, the search and seizure ofwere
against the State because the
absence by the
conducted of crew governmental
and without
interference.
government intervention.
unreasonable and the confiscated items are
inadmissible in evidence.
FACTS:
RULING: