28235802 constitutional law ii cases arrest searches and seizures

8/13/2019 28235802 Constitutional Law II Cases Arrest Searches and Seizures

1/27

1

Alvero vs. Dizon [GR L-342, 4 May 1946]En Banc, de Joya (J): 4 concur, 4 acting justicesconcur

Facs!On 12 February 1945, while the battlefor Manila was raging, soldiers of the UnitedStates Army, aom!anied by men of Fili!ino

"uerrilla Fores, !laed Aurelio S# Al$ero underarrest, ha$ing been sus!eted of ollaborationwith the enemy, and sei%ed and too& ertain!a!ers from his house in 'asay, (i%al# On orabout 4 Otober 1945, Al$ero was aused oftreason, in riminal ase ) of the 'eo!le*s+ourt after whih, on 1 -eember 1945, hefiled a !etition, demanding the return of the!a!ers allegedly sei%ed and ta&en from hishouse# Al$ero also filed a !etition for bail, at thehearing of whih the !roseution !resentedertain !a!ers and douments, whih wereadmitted as !art of its e$idene, and said

!etition was denied# At the trial of the ase onthe merits, the !roseution again !resentedsaid !a!ers and douments, whih wereadmitted as !art of its e$idene, and weremar&ed as e.hibits# On 2/ February 194/, the0udges issued an order denying the !etition forthe return of the douments, and admitted asom!etent e$idene the douments !resentedby the !roseution# On the same date that saidorder was issued, denying the !etition for thereturn of said douments, Al$ero as&ed for thereonsideration of said order, whih was alsodenied# Al$ero filed a !etition for ertiorari with

in0untion with the Su!reme +ourt#

"ss#e! hether the douments sei%ed byUnited States Army !ersonnel at Al$ero*s homean be used as e$idene against the latter#

$el%! he right of offiers and men of theUnited States Army to arrest Al$ero, as aollaborationist sus!et, and to sei%e his!ersonal !a!ers, without any searh warrant, inthe %one of military o!erations, isun3uestionable, under the !ro$isions of artile

4, +ha!ter , Setion , of the (egulationsrelati$e to the aws and +ustoms of ar onand of the 6ague +on$entions of 1978,authori%ing the sei%ure of military !a!ers in the!ossession of !risoners of war and also underthe !rolamation, dated 29 -eember 1944,issued by "en# -ouglas MaArthur, as+ommander in +hief of the United States Army,delaring his !ur!ose to remo$e ertain iti%ensof the 'hili!!ines, who had $oluntarily gi$en aidand omfort to the enemy, in $iolation of theallegiane due the "o$ernments of the UnitedStates and the +ommonwealth of the

'hili!!ines, when a!!rehended, from any!osition of !olitial and eonomi influene inthe 'hili!!ines and to hold them in restraint forthe duration of the war# he !ur!ose of theonstitutional !ro$isions against unlawful

searhes and sei%ures is to !re$ent $iolations of!ri$ate seurity in !erson and !ro!erty, andunlawful in$asions of the santity of the home,by offiers of the law ating under legislati$e or0udiial santion, and to gi$e remedy againstsuh usur!ations when attem!ted# ut it doesnot !rohibit the "o$ernment from ta&ingad$antage of unlawful searhes made by a!ri$ate !erson or under authority of state law#6erein, as the soldiers of the United StatesArmy, that too& and sei%ed ertain !a!ers anddouments from the residene of Al$ero, werenot ating as agents or on behalf of the"o$ernment of the +ommonwealth of the'hili!!ines and that those !a!ers anddouments ame into the !ossession of theauthorities of the +ommonwealth "o$ernment,through the Offie of the ++ of the UnitedStates Army in Manila, the use and !resentationof said !a!ers and douments, as e$idene for

the !roseution against Al$ero, at the trial of hisase for treason, before the 'eo!le*s +ourt,annot now be legally atta&ed, on the groundof unlawful or unreasonable searhes andsei%ures, or on any other onstitutional ground,as delared by the Su!reme +ourt of the UnitedStates in similar ases# :See urdeau $s#M-owell, 25/ U# S#, 4/5 "ambino $s# UnitedStates, 285 U# S#, )17#;

&eo'le vs. An%re Mari [GR (1)61, 1(*an#ary 1991]Third Division, Bidin (J): 3 concur

Facs!On 14 August 19


2/27

2

o!ening of one of the glo$es, and too& se$eralgrams of the ontents thereof# Cob (eyesforthwith !re!ared a letter re!orting theshi!ment to the D and re3uesting a laboratorye.amination of the sam!les he e.trated fromthe ello!hane wra!!er# At the DarotisSetion of the Dational ureau of n$estigation:D;, the bo. ontaining Marti*s !a&ages waso!ened, yielding dried mari0uana lea$es, ora&e=li&e :bri&s; dried mari0uana lea$es# heD agents made an in$entory and too& hargeof the bo. and of the ontents thereof, aftersigning a @(eei!t a&nowledging ustody ofthe said effets# hereu!on, the D agentstried to loate Marti but to no a$ail, inasmuhas the latter*s stated address was the Manila+entral 'ost Offie# hereafter, an nformationwas filed against Marti for $iolation of (A /425,otherwise &nown as the -angerous -rugs At#After trial, the S!eial +riminal +ourt of Manila

:(egional rial +ourt, ranh EE; rendered thedeision, on$iting Marti of $iolation of Setion21 :b;, Artile in relation to Setion 4, Artile11 and Setion 2 :e;:i;, Artile 1 of (e!ubli At/425, as amended, otherwise &nown as the-angerous -rugs At# Marti a!!ealed#

"ss#e!hether an at of a !ri$ate indi$idual,allegedly in $iolation of the aused*sonstitutional rights, be in$o&ed against theState#

$el%! n the absene of go$ernmental

interferene, the liberties guaranteed by the+onstitution annot be in$o&ed against theState# he ontraband herein, ha$ing ome into!ossession of the "o$ernment without the lattertransgressing the aused*s rights againstunreasonable searh and sei%ure, the +ourtsees no ogent reason why the same should notbe admitted against him in the !roseution ofthe offense harged# he mere !resene of theD agents did not on$ert the reasonablesearh effeted by (eyes into a warrantlesssearh and sei%ure !rosribed by the+onstitution# Merely to obser$e and loo& at thatwhih is in !lain sight is not a searh# 6a$ingobser$ed that whih is o!en, where no tres!asshas been ommitted in aid thereof, is notsearh# here the ontraband artiles areidentified without a tres!ass on the !art of thearresting offier, there is not the searh that is!rohibited by the onstitution# heonstitutional !rosri!tion against unlawfulsearhes and sei%ures therefore a!!lies as arestraint direted only against the go$ernmentand its agenies tas&ed with the enforement ofthe law# hus, it ould only be in$o&ed against

the State to whom the restraint againstarbitrary and unreasonable e.erise of !ower isim!osed# f the searh is made u!on there3uest of law enforers, a warrant mustgenerally be first seured if it is to !ass the testof onstitutionality# 6owe$er, if the searh is

made at the behest or initiati$e of the!ro!rietor of a !ri$ate establishment for its ownand !ri$ate !ur!oses, as in the ase at bar, andwithout the inter$ention of !olie authorities,the right against unreasonable searh andsei%ure annot be in$o&ed for only the at of!ri$ate indi$idual, not the law enforers, isin$ol$ed# n sum, the !rotetion againstunreasonable searhes and sei%ures annot bee.tended to ats ommitted by !ri$ateindi$iduals so as to bring it within the ambit ofalleged unlawful intrusion by the go$ernment#

+ace o. /&il.0 "nc. vs. R#iz [GR L-3249, 2 Fer#ary 191]En Banc, Villamor (J): concur, ! "iled ase#arate concurring o#inion to $hich ! concurs,! concurs in result

Facs!On 24 February 1987, Misael '# era,

+ommissioner of nternal (e$enue, wrote aletter addressed to Cudge i$enio M# (ui%re3uesting the issuane of a searh warrantagainst ahe G +o# :'hil#;, n# and Frederi& >#Seggerman for $iolation of Setion 4/:a; of theDational nternal (e$enue +ode :D(+;, inrelation to all other !ertinent !ro$isions thereof,!artiularly Setions 5), 82, 8), 27< and 279,and authori%ing (e$enue >.aminer (odolfo deeon to ma&e and file the a!!liation for searhwarrant whih was attahed to the letter# n theafternoon of the following day, -e eon and hiswitness, Arturo ogronio, went to the +ourt of

First nstane :+F; of (i%al# hey brought withthem the following !a!ersH era*s letter=re3uest an a!!liation for searh warrantalready filled u! but still unsigned by -e eonan affida$it of ogronio subsribed before -eeon a de!osition in !rinted form of ogronioalready aom!lished and signed by him butnot yet subsribed and a searh warrantalready aom!lished but still unsigned byCudge# At that time the Cudge was hearing aertain ase so, by means of a note, heinstruted his -e!uty +ler& of +ourt to ta&e thede!ositions of -e eon and ogronio# After thesession had ad0ourned, the Cudge was informedthat the de!ositions had already been ta&en#he stenogra!her, u!on re3uest of the Cudge,read to him her stenogra!hi notes andthereafter, the Cudge as&ed ogronio to ta&e theoath and warned him that if his de!osition wasfound to be false and without legal basis, heould be harged for !er0ury# he Cudge signedde eon*s a!!liation for searh warrant andogronio*s de!osition# Searh arrant 2=M=87was then signed by Cudge and aordinglyissued# ) days later :a Saturday;, the ( agents

ser$ed the searh warrant to the or!orationand Seggerman at the offies of the or!orationon Ayala A$enue, Ma&ati, (i%al# heor!oration*s lawyers !rotested the searh onthe ground that no formal om!laint ortransri!t of testimony was attahed to the


3/27

)

warrant# he agents ne$ertheless !roeededwith their searh whih yielded / bo.es ofdouments# On ) Marh 1987, the or!orationand Seggerman filed a !etition with the +ourt ofFirst nstane :+F; of (i%al !raying that thesearh warrant be 3uashed, dissol$ed orrealled, that !reliminary !rohibitory andmandatory writs of in0untion be issued, thatthe searh warrant be delared null and $oid,and that era, ogronio, de eon, et# al#, beordered to !ay the or!oration and Seggerman,0ointly and se$erally, damages and attorney*sfees# After hearing and on 29 Culy 1987, theourt issued an order dismissing the !etition fordissolution of the searh warrant# n themeantime, or on 1/ A!ril 1987, the ureau ofnternal (e$enue made ta. assessments on theor!oration in the total sum of '2,594,829#98,!artly, if not entirely, based on the doumentsthus sei%ed# he or!oration and Seggerman

filed an ation for ertiorari, !rohibition, andmandamus#

"ss#e!hether the or!oration has the right toontest the legality of the sei%ure of doumentsfrom its offie#

$el%!he legality of a sei%ure an be ontestedonly by the !arty whose rights ha$e beenim!aired thereby, and that the ob0etion to anunlawful searh and sei%ure is !urely !ersonaland annot be a$ailed of by third !arties# nStonehill, et al# $s# -io&no, et al# :"( =19557,

19 Cune 19/8 27 S+(A )$en in their lassifiation the /!ro$isions are embraed in 2 different titlesHSetions 4/:a;, 5), 82 and 8) are under itle :nome a.; while Setions 27< and 279 are

under itle :'ri$ilege a. on usiness andOu!ation;# astly, the searh warrant doesnot !artiularly desribe the things to be sei%ed#Searh arrant Do# 2=M=87 tends to defeat thema0or ob0eti$e of the ill of (ights, i#e#, theelimination of general warrants, for thelanguage used therein is so all=embraing as toinlude all onei$able reords of theor!oration, whih, if sei%ed, ould !ossiblyrender its business ino!erati$e# hus, Searharrant 2=M=87 is null and $oid#

oneill vs. Dio5no [GR L-19)), 19 *#ne

196]En Banc, %once#cion (%J): & concur

Facs!U!on a!!liation of the offiers of thego$ernment, S!eial 'roseutors 'edro -#+en%on, >fren # 'lana and Manuel illareal Cr#and Assistant Fisal Manases "# (eyes CudgeAmado (oan :Munii!al +ourt of Manila;, Cudge(oman +ansino :Munii!al +ourt of Manila;,Cudge 6ermogenes +aluag :+ourt of Firstnstane of (i%al=Iue%on +ity ranh;, andCudge -amian Cimene% :Munii!al +ourt of

Iue%on +ity; issued, on different dates, a totalof 42 searh warrants against 6arry S# Stonehill,(obert '# roo&s, 6Cohn C# roo&s, and Jarle&, andBor the or!orations of whih theywere offiers, direted to any !eae offier, tosearh the said !ersons andBor the !remises of


4/27

4

their offies, warehouses andBor residenes, andto sei%e and ta&e !ossession of the following!ersonal !ro!erty to witH @oo&s of aounts,finanial reords, $ouhers, orres!ondene,reei!ts, ledgers, 0ournals, !ortfolios, redit0ournals, ty!ewriters, and other doumentsandBor !a!ers showing all business transationsinluding disbursements reei!ts, balanesheets and !rofit and loss statements andobbins :igarette wra!!ers; as @the sub0et ofthe offense stolen or embe%%led and !roeedsor fruits of the offense, or @used or intended tobe used as the means of ommitting theoffense, whih is desribed in the a!!liationsad$erted to abo$e as @$iolation of +entral an&aws, ariff and +ustoms aws, nternal(e$enue :+ode; and the (e$ised 'enal +ode#Alleging that the searh warrants are null and$oid, as ontra$ening the +onstitution and the(ules of +ourt, Stonehill, et# al# filed with the

Su!reme +ourt the original ation for ertiorari,!rohibition, mandamus and in0untion# On 22Marh 19/2, the Su!reme +ourt issued the writof !reliminary in0untion !rayed for in the!etition# 6owe$er, by resolution dated 29 Cune19/2, the writ was !artially lifted or dissol$ed,insofar as the !a!ers, douments and thingssei%ed from the offies of the or!orations areonerned but, the in0untion was maintainedas regards the !a!ers, douments and thingsfound and sei%ed in the residenes of Stonehill,et# al#

"ss#e!hether Stonehill, et# al# an assail thelegality of the ontested warrants that allowedsei%ure of douments, !a!ers and other effetsin the or!orate offies, and other !laesbesides their residenes#

$el%! Stonehill, et# al# maintained that thesearh warrants are in the nature of generalwarrants and that, aordingly, the sei%ureseffeted u!on the authority thereof are null and$oid# Do warrant shall issue but u!on !robableause, to be determined by the 0udge in themanner set forth in said !ro$ision and thewarrant shall !artiularly desribe the things tobe sei%ed# Done of these re3uirements has beenom!lied with in the ontested warrants# hegra$e $iolation of the +onstitution made in thea!!liation for the ontested searh warrantswas om!ounded by the desri!tion thereinmade of the effets to be searhed for andsei%ed# he warrants authori%ed the searh forand sei%ure of reords !ertaining to all businesstransations of Stonehill, et# al#, regardless ofwhether the transations were legal or illegal#he warrants santioned the sei%ure of all

reords of the or!orate offiers and theor!orations, whate$er their nature, thuso!enly ontra$ening the e.!liit ommand ofour ill of (ights K that the things to be sei%edbe !artiularly desribed K as well as tendingto defeat its ma0or ob0eti$eH the elimination of

general warrants# 6owe$er, the douments,!a!ers, and things sei%ed under the allegedauthority of the warrants in 3uestion may bes!lit into :2; ma0or grou!s, namelyH :a; thosefound and sei%ed in the offies of theor!orations and :b; those found sei%ed in theresidenes of Stonehill, et# al# As regards thefirst grou!, Stonehill, et# al# ha$e no ause ofation to assail the legality of the ontestedwarrants and of the sei%ures made in !ursuanethereof, for the sim!le reason that saidor!orations ha$e their res!eti$e !ersonalities,se!arate and distint from the !ersonality ofStonehill, et# al#, regardless of the amount ofshares of sto& or of the interest of eah ofthem in said or!orations, and whate$er theoffies they hold therein may be# ndeed, it iswell settled that the legality of a sei%ure an beontested only by the !arty whose rights ha$ebeen im!aired thereby, and that the ob0etion

to an unlawful searh and sei%ure is !urely!ersonal and annot be a$ailed of by third!arties# +onse3uently, Stonehill, et# al# may not$alidly ob0et to the use in e$idene againstthem of the douments, !a!ers and thingssei%ed from the offies and !remises of theor!orations ad$erted to abo$e, sine the rightto ob0et to the admission of said !a!ers ine$idene belongs e.lusi$ely to theor!orations, to whom the sei%ed effetsbelong, and may not be in$o&ed by theor!orate offiers in !roeedings against themin their indi$idual a!aity# ith res!et to the

douments, !a!ers and things sei%ed in theresidenes of Stonehill, et# al#, the 29 Cune 19/2(esolution of the Su!reme +ourt, denying thelifting of the writ of !reliminary in0untion!re$iously issued by the +ourt on thedouments, !a!ers and things sei%ed in theresidenes, in effet, restrained the !roseutorsfrom using them in e$idene against Stonehill,et# al# hus, the +ourt held that the warrants forthe searh of ) residenes are null and $oidthat the searhes and sei%ures therein madeare illegal that the writ of !reliminary in0untionheretofore issued, in onnetion with the

douments, !a!ers and other effets thussei%ed in said residenes is made !ermanent,that the writs !rayed for are granted, insofar asthe douments, !a!ers and other effets sosei%ed in the residenes are onerned andthat the !etition herein is dismissed and thewrits !rayed for denied, as regards thedouments, !a!ers and other effets sei%ed inthe 29 !laes, offies and other !remises#

#rcer vs. an7or% Daily [436 8 )4, 31May 19(]'hite (J): 3 concur, ! "iled a se#arate


5/27

5

concurring o#inion, "iled se#arate dissentingo#inions, to $hich ! joined, ! too no #art*

Facs!On 9 A!ril 1981, offiers of the 'alo Alto'olie -e!artment and of the Santa +lara+ounty Sheriff*s -e!artment res!onded to a allfrom the diretor of the Stanford Uni$ersity

6os!ital re3uesting the remo$al of a largegrou! of demonstrators who had sei%ed thehos!ital*s administrati$e offies and ou!iedthem sine the !re$ious afternoon# After se$eralfutile efforts to !ersuade the demonstrators tolea$e !eaefully, more drasti measures wereem!loyed# he !olie hose to fore their wayin at the west end of the orridor# As they didso, a grou! of demonstrators emerged throughthe doors at the east end and, armed withsti&s and lubs, atta&ed the grou! of nine!olie offiers stationed there# All nine werein0ured# he offiers themsel$es were able to

identify only two of their assailants, but one ofthem did see at least one !erson !hotogra!hingthe assault at the east doors# On A!ril 11:Sunday;, a s!eial edition of the Stanford -aily:-aily;, a student news!a!er !ublished atStanford Uni$ersity, arried artiles and!hotogra!hs de$oted to the hos!ital !rotestand the $iolent lash between demonstratorsand !olie# he !hotogra!hs arried the bylineof a -aily staff member and indiated that hehad been at the east end of the hos!ital hallwaywhere he ould ha$e !hotogra!hed the assaulton the 9 offiers# he ne.t day, the Santa +lara

+ounty -istrit Attorney*s Offie seured awarrant from the Munii!al +ourt for animmediate searh of the -aily*s offies fornegati$es, film, and !itures showing thee$ents and ourrenes at the hos!ital on thee$ening of A!ril 9# he warrant issued on afinding of @0ust, !robable and reasonable ausefor belie$ing thatH Degati$es and !hotogra!hsand films, e$idene material and rele$ant to theidentity of the !er!etrators of felonies, to wit,attery on a 'eae Offier, and Assault with-eadly ea!on, will be loated Lon the!remises of the -aily# he warrant affida$it

ontained no allegation or indiation thatmembers of the -aily staff were in any wayin$ol$ed in unlawful ats at the hos!ital# hesearh !ursuant to the warrant was ondutedlater that day by 4 !olie offiers and too& !laein the !resene of some members of the -ailystaff# he -aily*s !hotogra!hi laboratories,filing abinets, des&s, and waste!a!er bas&etswere searhed# o&ed drawers and rooms werenot o!ened# he searh re$ealed only the!hotogra!hs that had already been !ublishedon A!ril 11, and no materials were remo$ed

from the -aily*s offie# A month later the -ailyand $arious members of its staff brought a i$ilation in the United States -istrit +ourt for theDorthern -istrit of +alifornia see&ingdelaratory and in0unti$e relief under 42 U#S#+#19


6/27

/

early in an in$estigation before all the!er!etrators of a rime ha$e been identifiedand the seemingly blameless third !arty may beim!liated# he delay in em!loying a sub!oenadues teum ould easily result indisa!!earane of the e$idene# Dor would theause of !ri$ay be ser$ed sine searhwarrants are more diffiult to obtain thansub!oenas# astly, !ro!erly administered, the!reonditions for a searh warrant :!robableause, s!eifiity with res!et to the !lae to besearhed and the things to be sei%ed, ando$erall reasonableness;, whih must be a!!liedwith !artiular e.atitude when FirstAmendment interests would be endangered bythe searh, are ade3uate safeguards againstthe interferene with the !ress* ability togather, analy%e, and disseminate news thatres!ondents laim would ensue from use ofwarrants for third=!arty searhes of news!a!er

offies#

ilson vs. Layne [)26 8 63, 24 May1999]+ehnuist (%J)

Facs! n early 1992, the Attorney "eneral ofthe United States a!!ro$ed @O!eration"unsmo&e, a s!eial national fugiti$ea!!rehension !rogram in whih United StatesMarshals wor&ed with state and loal !olie toa!!rehend dangerous riminals# his effeti$e!rogram ultimately resulted in o$er ),777

arrests in 47 metro!olitan areas# One of thedangerous fugiti$es identified as a target of@O!eration "unsmo&e was -omini ilson, theson of +harles and "eraldine ilson# -ominiilson had $iolated his !robation on !re$iousfelony harges of robbery, theft, and assaultwith intent to rob, and the !olie om!uterlisted @aution indiators that he was li&ely tobe armed, to resist arrest, and to @assault!olie# he om!uter also listed his address as979 Dorth StoneStreet A$enue in (o&$ille,Maryland# Un&nown to the !olie, this wasatually the home of -omini ilson*s !arents#hus, in A!ril 1992, the +iruit +ourt forMontgomery +ounty issued three arrestwarrants for -omini ilson, one for eah of his!robation $iolations# he warrants were eahaddressed to @any duly authori%ed !eaeoffier, and ommanded suh offiers to arresthim and bring him @immediately before the+iruit +ourt to answer an inditment as to his!robation $iolation# he warrants made nomention of media !resene or assistane# n theearly morning hours of 1/ A!ril 1992, a"unsmo&e team of -e!uty United States

Marshals and Montgomery +ounty 'olieoffiers assembled to e.eute the -ominiilson warrants# he team was aom!anied bya re!orter and a !hotogra!her from theashington 'ost, who had been in$ited by theMarshals to aom!any them on their mission

as !art of a Marshal*s Ser$ie ride=along !oliy#At /H45 a#m#, the offiers, with mediare!resentati$es in tow, entered the dwelling at979 Dorth StoneStreet A$enue in the inoln'ar& neighborhood of (o&$ille# +harles and"eraldine ilson were still in bed when theyheard the offiers enter the home# +harlesilson, dressed only in a !air of briefs, ran intothe li$ing room to in$estigate# -iso$ering atleast 5 men in street lothes with guns in hisli$ing room, he angrily demanded that theystate their business, and re!eatedly ursed theoffiers# elie$ing him to be an angry -ominiilson, the offiers 3ui&ly subdued him on thefloor# "eraldine ilson ne.t entered the li$ingroom to in$estigate, wearing only a nightgown#She obser$ed her husband being restrained bythe armed offiers# hen their !roteti$e swee!was om!leted, the offiers learned that-omini ilson was not in the house, and they

de!arted# -uring the time that the offiers werein the home, the ashington 'ost !hotogra!hertoo& numerous !itures# he !rint re!orter wasalso a!!arently in the li$ing room obser$ing theonfrontation between the !olie and +harlesilson# At no time, howe$er, were the re!ortersin$ol$ed in the e.eution of the arrest warrant#+harles and "eraldine ilson sued the lawenforement offiials in their !ersonala!aities for money damages, and ontendedthat the offiers* ations in bringing members ofthe media to obser$e and reord the attem!tede.eution of the arrest warrant $iolated their

Fourth Amendment rights# he -istrit +ourtdenied the !olie offiers* motion for summary0udgment on the basis of 3ualified immunity# Oninterloutory a!!eal to the +ourt of A!!eals, adi$ided !anel re$ersed and held that theoffiers were entitled to 3ualified immunity# hease was twie reheard en ban, where adi$ided +ourt of A!!eals again u!held thedefense of 3ualified immunity# he +ourt ofA!!eals delined to deide whether the ationsof the !olie $iolated the Fourth Amendment# tonluded instead that beause no ourt hadheld :at the time of the searh; that media

!resene during a !olie entry into a residene$iolated the Fourth Amendment, the rightallegedly $iolated by !etitioners was not@learly established and thus 3ualifiedimmunity was !ro!er# 141 F# )d 111 :+A4199


7/27

8

to e.eute the arrest warrant for -ominiilson, they were not entitled to bring anews!a!er re!orter and a !hotogra!her withthem# hile it does not mean that e$ery !olieation while inside a home must be e.!liitlyauthori%ed by the te.t of the warrant :FourthAmendment allows tem!orary detainer ofhomeowner while !olie searh the home!ursuant to warrant;, the Fourth Amendmentdoes re3uire that !olie ations in e.eution ofa warrant be related to the ob0eti$es of theauthori%ed intrusion :he !ur!oses 0ustifying a!olie searh stritly limit the !ermissiblee.tent of the searh;# +ertainly the !resene ofre!orters inside the home was not related tothe ob0eti$es of the authori%ed intrusion#nasmuh as that the re!orters did not engagein the e.eution of the warrant and did notassist the !olie in their tas&, the re!orterswere not !resent for any reason related to the

0ustifiation for !olie entry into the homeNthea!!rehension of -omini ilson# his is not aase in whih the !resene of the third !artiesdiretly aided in the e.eution of the warrant#here the !olie enter a home under theauthority of a warrant to searh for stolen!ro!erty, the !resene of third !arties for the!ur!ose of identifying the stolen !ro!erty haslong been a!!ro$ed by this +ourt and ourommon=law tradition# he laim of the offiers,that the !resene of the ashington 'ostre!orters in the ilsons* home nonethelessser$ed a number of legitimate law enforement

!ur!oses ignores, the im!ortane of the right ofresidential !ri$ay at the ore of the FourthAmendment# t may well be that media ride=alongs further the law enforement ob0eti$esof the !olie in a general sense, but that is notthe same as furthering the !ur!oses of thesearh# ere suh generali%ed @lawenforement ob0eti$es themsel$es suffiientto trum! the Fourth Amendment, the!rotetions guaranteed by that Amendment*ste.t would be signifiantly watered down#Although it may be laimed the !resene ofthird !arties ould ser$e in some situations to

minimi%e !olie abuses and !rotet sus!ets,and also to !rotet the safety of the offiers,suh a situation is signifiantly different fromthe media !resene in this ase, where theashington 'ost re!orters in the ilsons* homewere wor&ing on a story for their own !ur!oses#a&en in their entirety, the reasons ad$anedby the offiers fall short of 0ustifying the!resene of media inside a home# hus, it is a$iolation of the Fourth Amendment for !olie tobring members of the media or other third!arties into a home during the e.eution of awarrant when the !resene of the third !artiesin the home was not in aid of the e.eution ofthe warrant#

+#r:os v. ie7 o7 a77, AF& [GR 64261,26 Dece;er 19(4]En Banc, Escolin (J): !- concur, ! too no #art

Facs! On 8 -eember 19rnani+ru%='ao, >.euti$e Cudge of the then +F (i%alLIue%on +ity, issued 2 searh warrants where

the !remises at 19, (oad ), 'ro0et /, Iue%on+ity, and 8


8/27

$idene, ontending that themari0uana allegedly sei%ed from them isinadmissible as e$idene for ha$ing beenobtained in $iolation of their onstitutional rightagainst unreasonable searhes and sei%ures#he demurrer was denied by the trial ourt# Amotion for reonsideration was filed by theaused, but this was li&ewise denied# he

aused wai$ed !resentation of e$idene ando!ted to file a 0oint memorandum# On 25 A!ril1998, the trial ourt rendered the deision,finding the aused guilty of the offenseharged, and sentened both to suffer the!enalty of death by lethal in0etion# 'ursuant toArtile 48 of the (e$ised 'enal +ode and (ule122, Setion 17 of the (ules of +ourt, the asewas ele$ated to the Su!reme +ourt onautomati re$iew#

"ss#e! hether Mula and Molina manifestedoutward indiation that would 0ustify their

arrest, and the sei%ure of !rohibited drugs thatwere in their !ossession#

$el%! he fundamental law of the landmandates that searhes and sei%ures be arriedout in a reasonable fashion, that is, by $irtue oron the strength of a searh warrant !rediatedu!on the e.istene of a !robable ause#+om!lementary to the foregoing !ro$ision isthe e.lusionary rule enshrined under Artile ,Setion ), !aragra!h 2, whih bolsters andsolidifies the !rotetion against unreasonablesearhes and sei%ures# he foregoingonstitutional !rosri!tion, howe$er, is notwithout e.e!tions# Searh and sei%ure may bemade without a warrant and the e$ideneobtained therefrom may be admissible in thefollowing instanesH :1; searh inident to alawful arrest :2; searh of a mo$ing motor$ehile :); searh in $iolation of ustoms laws:4; sei%ure of e$idene in !lain $iew :5; whenthe aused himself wai$es his right againstunreasonable searhes and sei%ures and :/;sto! and fris& situations :erry searh;# he firste.e!tion :searh inidental to a lawful arrest;

inludes a $alid warrantless searh and sei%ure!ursuant to an e3ually $alid warrantless arrestwhih must !reede the searh# Still, the lawre3uires that there be first a lawful arrest beforea searh an be made K the !roess annot bere$ersed# 6erein, Mula and Molina manifested

no outward indiation that would 0ustify theirarrest# n holding a bag on board a trisi&ad, theyould not be said to be ommitting, attem!tingto ommit or ha$e ommitted a rime# tmatters not that Molina res!onded @oss, if!ossible we will settle this to the re3uest ofS'O1 'am!lona to o!en the bag# Suh res!onsewhih allegedly reinfored the @sus!iion ofthe arresting offiers that Mula and Molina wereommitting a rime, is an e3ui$oal statementwhih standing alone will not onstitute!robable ause to effet an in flagrante delitoarrest# Dote that were it not for S'O1 Marino'aguido!on, Mula and Molina ould not be thesub0et of any sus!iion, reasonable orotherwise# Further, it would a!!ear that thenames and addresses of Mula and Molina ameto the &nowledge of S'O1 'aguido!on only afterthey were arrested, and suh annot lend asemblane of $alidity on the arrest effeted by

the !eae offiers# ithal, the +ourt holds thatthe arrest of Mula and Molina does not fallunder the e.e!tions allowed by the rules#6ene, the searh onduted on their !ersonwas li&ewise illegal# +onse3uently, themari0uana sei%ed by the !eae offiers ouldnot be admitted as e$idene against them#

&eo'le vs. alan:#i [GR 1332)4-)), 19A'ril 21]2econd Division, endoa (J): 4 concur

Facs!On 2/ -eember 1995, Sr# ns!# Aguilar

a!!lied for a warrant in the (egional rial +ourt,ranh 97, -asmariias, +a$ite, to searh theresidene of (obert Salanguit y Jo on inhaganSt#, Do$alihes, Iue%on +ity# 6e !resented ashis witness S'O1 >dmund adua, who testifiedthat as a !oseur=buyer, he was able to !urhase2#12 grams of shabu from Salanguit# he saletoo& !lae in Salunguit*s room, and adua sawthat the shabu was ta&en by Salunguit from aabinet inside his room# he a!!liation wasgranted, and a searh warrant was later issuedby 'residing Cudge -olores # >s!aol# At about17H)7 !#m# of said day, a grou! of about 17!oliemen, along with one i$ilian informer,went to the residene of Salunguit to ser$e thewarrant# he !olie o!erati$es &no&ed onSalanguit*s door, but nobody o!ened it# heyheard !eo!le inside the house, a!!arently!ani&ing# he !olie o!erati$es then fored thedoor o!en and entered the house# After showingthe searh warrant to the ou!ants of thehouse, t# +ortes and his grou! startedsearhing the house# hey found 12 small heat=sealed trans!arent !lasti bags ontaining awhite rystalline substane, a !a!er li! bo.

also ontaining a white rystalline substane,and two bri&s of dried lea$es whih a!!earedto be mari0uana wra!!ed in news!rint ha$ing atotal weight of a!!ro.imately 1,255 grams# Areei!t of the items sei%ed was !re!ared, butSalanguit refused to sign it# After the searh,


12/27

12

the !olie o!erati$es too& Salanguit with themto Station 17, >-SA, Jamuning, Iue%on +ity,along with the items they had sei%ed# 'O)-ua%o re3uested a laboratory e.amination ofthe onfisated e$idene# he white rystallinesubstane with a total weight of 2#88 grams andthose ontained in a small bo. with a totalweight of steban '# 'anotes for !reliminary in$estigation

who, after onduting said in$estigation, issueda resolution dated 2/ August 1984reommending that an information forAttem!ted heft be filed against "arrido andAla!an on a finding of !rima faie ase whihresolution was a!!ro$ed by Fisal lustre#"arrido and Ala!an sought reonsideration ofthe resolution but the same was denied byFisal lustre in a resolution dated 14 Otober1984# On 29 Otober 1984, Fisal lustre filedwith the +ourt of First nstane :+F; of+amarines Dorte an nformation dated 18Otober 19


13/27

1)

same in a letter dated 11 Cune 1985# A motionto dismiss dated 1/ Se!tember 1985 was thenfiled by the 'ro$inial Fisal but the ourtdenied the motion on the ground that there wasa !rima faie e$idene against "arrido andAla!an and set the ase for trial on 25 February198/# "arrido and Ala!an soughtreonsideration of the ourt*s ruling but in anOrder dated 1) February 198/, the motion filedfor said !ur!ose was li&ewise denied# rial ofthe ase was reset to 2) A!ril 198/# hereafter,Fisal lustre was a!!ointed a 0udge in the +F ofAlbay and Fisal ?abala beame offier=in=harge of the 'ro$inial Fisal*s Offie of+amarines Dorte# On 19 A!ril 198/, Fisal?abala filed a Seond Motion to -ismiss thease# his seond motion to dismiss was deniedby the trial ourt in an order dated 2) A!ril198/# hereu!on, Fisal ?abala manifestedthat he would not !roseute the ase and

disauthori%ed any !ri$ate !roseutor to a!!eartherein# 6ene, the +om!any filed a !etition formandamus before the Su!reme +ourt#

"ss#e! hether the fisal an refuse to!roseute the ase if the Seretary of Custiere$ersed the findings of !rima faie ase by thefisal#

$el%!f the fisal is not at all on$ined that a!rima faie ase e.ists, he sim!ly annot mo$efor the dismissal of the ase and, when denied,refuse to !roseute the same# 6e is obliged by

law to !roeed and !roseute the riminalation# 6e annot im!ose his o!inion on the trialourt# At least what he an do is to ontinuea!!earing for the !roseution and then turno$er the !resentation of e$idene to anotherfisal or a !ri$ate !roseutor sub0et to hisdiretion and ontrol# here there is no other!roseutor a$ailable, he should !roeed todisharge his duty and !resent the e$idene tothe best of his ability and let the ourt deidethe merits of the ase on the basis of thee$idene addued by both !arties# he merefat that the Seretary of Custie had, afterre$iewing the reords of the ase, direted the!roseuting fisal to mo$e for the dismissal ofthe ase and the motion to dismiss filed!ursuant to said direti$e is denied by the trialourt, is no 0ustifiation for the refusal of thefisal to !roseute the ase# One a om!laintor information is filed in +ourt any dis!osition ofthe ase as its dismissal or the on$ition ora3uittal of the aused rests in the sounddisretion of the +ourt# he +ourt is the bestand sole 0udge on what to do with the asebefore it# he determination of the ase is

within its e.lusi$e 0urisdition andom!etene# A motion to dismiss the ase filedby the fisal should he addressed to the +ourtwho has the o!tion to grant or deny the same#t does not matter if this is done before or afterthe arraignment of the aused or that the

motion was filed after a rein$estigation or u!oninstrutions of the Seretary of Custie whore$iewed the reords of the in$estigation#

&a%eran:a vs. Drilon [GR 96(, 19 A'ril1991]En Banc, +egalado (J): !4 concur

Facs!On 1/ Otober 19ddieorion, Cohn -oe, 'eter -oe and (ihard -oe,for the deaths on 1 May 19


14/27

14

denied by "ingoyon in his order dated 29Canuary 1997# From the aforesaid resolution andorder, 'aderanga filed a 'etition for (e$iew withthe -e!artment of Custie# hereafter, hesubmitted a Su!!lemental 'etition withMemorandum, and then a Su!!lementalMemorandum with Additional>.ul!atoryB>.onerating >$idene Anne.ed,attahing thereto an affida$it of (o.as dated 27Cune 1997 and !ur!orting to be a retration ofhis affida$it of )7 Marh 1997 wherein heim!liated 'aderanga# On 17 August 1997, the-e!artment of Custie, through UnderseretarySil$estre 6# ello , issued (esolution /4no& #-imaraw# A notation was li&ewise made on theinformation by 'ro$inial 'roseutor 'anda,whih e.!lained the reason for his inhibition#he following day, the 0udge issued a warrantfor the arrest of the Abdulas# U!on learning ofthe issuane of the said warrant, the Abdulasfiled on 4 Canuary 1995 an Urgent >.=!arteMotion for the setting aside of the warrant ofarrest on 4 Canuary 1995# n this motion, theAbdulas argued that the enforement of thewarrant of arrest should be held in abeyaneonsidering that the information was

!rematurely filed and that the Abdulas intendedto file a !etition for re$iew with the -e!artmentof Custie# A !etition for re$iew was filed by theAbdulas with the -e!artment of Custie on 11Canuary 1995# -es!ite said filing, the 0udge didnot at u!on the Abdulas* !ending Motion to SetAside the arrant of Arrest# he Abdulas filedthe 'etition for +ertiorari and 'rohibition withthe Su!reme +ourt#

"ss#e!hether the 0udge may rely u!on thefindings of the !roseutor in determining!robable ause in the issuane of searh or

arrest warrant#

$el%!he 19


17/27

18

a warrant of arrest# +onse3uently, the warrantof arrest should be delared null and $oid#

&asion =%a. %e Garcia vs. Locsin [GR4)9), 2 *#ne 193(]5irst Division, 6aurel (J): & concur

Facs! On 17 Do$ember 19)4, Mariano "#Almeda, an agent of the Anti=Usury oard,obtained from the 0ustie of the !eae of arla,arla, a searh warrant ommanding anyoffier of the law to searh the !erson, house orstore of eona 'asion da# de "aria at itoria,arla, for @ertain boo&s, lists, hits, reei!ts,douments and other !a!ers relating to herati$ities as usurer# he searh warrant wasissued u!on an affida$it gi$en by the saidAlmeda @that he has and there is 0ust and!robable ause to belie$e and he does belie$ethat eona 'asion de "aria &ee!s and oneals

in her house and store at itoria, arla,ertain boo&s, lists, hits, reei!ts, douments,and other !a!ers relating to her ati$ities asusurer, all of whih is ontrary to the statute insuh ases made and !ro$ided# On the samedate, Almeda, aom!anied by a a!tain of the'hili!!ine +onstabulary, went to the offie of'asion de "aria in itoria, arla and, aftershowing the searh warrant to the latter*sboo&&ee!er, Alfredo Salas, and, without 'asionde "aria*s !resene who was ill and onfinedat the time, !roeeded with the e.eutionthereof# wo !a&ages of reords and a lo&ed

filing abinet ontaining se$eral !a!ers anddouments were sei%ed by Almeda and areei!t therefor issued by him to Salas# he!a!ers and douments sei%ed were &e!t for aonsiderable length of time by the Anti=Usuryoard and thereafter were turned o$er by it tothe !ro$inial fisal Feli. m!erial, whosubse3uently filed, in the +ourt of First nstane:+F; of arla, / se!arate riminal asesagainst 'asion de "aria for $iolation of theAnti=Usury aw# On se$eral oasions, aftersei%ure, 'asion de "aria, through ounsel,demanded from the Anti=Usury oard the returnof the douments sei%ed# On Canuary 8, and, bymotion, on 4 Cune 19)8, the legality of thesearh warrant was hallenged by 'asion de"aria*s ounsel in the / riminal ases and thede$olution of the douments demanded# yresolution of 5 Otober 19)8, Cudge -iegoosin :+F; denied 'asion de garia*s motion ofCune 4 for the reason that though the searhwarrant was illegal, there was a wai$er on thelatter*s !art# A motion for reonsideration was!resented but was denied by order of ) Canuary19)$enae!ting the desri!tion of the !ro!erties to besei%ed to be suffiient and on the assum!tionthat the reei!t issued is suffiiently detailedwithin the meaning of the law, the !ro!ertiessei%ed were not deli$ered to the ourt whihissued the warrant, as re3uired by law# nstead,they were turned o$er to the !ro$inial fisaland used by him in building u! ases against'asion de "aria# +onsidering that at the time

the warrant was issued there was no ase!ending against 'asion de "aria, the a$ermentthat the warrant was issued !rimarily fore.!loration !ur!oses is not without basis# hesearh warrant was illegally issued by the0ustie of the !eae of arla, arla# n anye$ent, the failure on the !art of 'asion de"aria and her boo&&ee!er to resist or ob0et tothe e.eution of the warrant does not onstitutean im!lied wai$er of onstitutional right# t is, asCudge +ooley obser$es, but a submission to theauthority of the law# As the onstitutionalguaranty is not de!endent u!on any affirmati$e

at of the iti%en, the ourts do not !lae theiti%en in the !osition of either ontesting anoffier*s authority by fore, or wai$ing hisonstitutional rights but instead they hold thata !eaeful submission to a searh or sei%ure isnot a onsent or an in$itation thereto, but ismerely a demonstration of regard for thesu!remay of the law#

>ee #e ?oy vs. Al;e%a [GR 421, 1)*#ne 194]6aurel (J): 3 concur, ! concurs in result

Facs! n res!onse to a sworn a!!liation ofMariano "# Almeda, hief agent of the Anti=Usury oard, dated 5 May 19)


18/27

1strada, s!eial agent of the Anti=Usury oard,issued on the same date a searh warrantommanding any !eae offier to searh duringday time the store and !remises ou!ied bySam Sing G +o#, situated at Sagay, OidentalDegros, as well as the !erson of said Sam SingG +o#, and to sei%e the douments, noteboo&s,lists, reei!ts and !romissory notes being usedby said Sam Sing G +o# in onnetion with theirati$ities of lending money at usurious rates ofinterest in $iolation of law, or suh as may befound, and to bring them forthwith before theaforesaid 0ustie of the !eae of Sagay# On thesame date, at 17H)7 a# m#, searh wasaordingly made by Mariano "# Almeda, Cose>strada, 2 internal re$enue agents and 2members of the 'hili!!ine Army, who sei%edertain reei!t boo&s, $ales or !romissorynotes, hits, noteboo&s, 0ournal boo&, andolletion list belonging to Sam Sing G +o# and

enumerated in the in$entory reei!t issued byMariano "# Almeda to the owner of thedouments, !a!ers and artiles sei%ed#mmediately after the searh and sei%ure thuseffeted, Mariano "# Almeda filed a return withthe 0ustie of the !eae of Sagay together# itha re3uest that the offie of the Anti=Usury oardbe allowed to retain !ossession of the artilessei%ed for e.amination, !ursuant to setion 4 ofAt 4179, whih re3uest was granted# Under thedate of 11 Marh 19)9, "odofredo '# >salona,ounsel for Sam Sing G +o# filed a motion withthe +ourt of First nstane :+F; of Oidental

Degros !raying that the searh warrant and thesei%ure effeted thereunder be delared illegaland set aside and that the artiles in 3uestionbe ordered returned to Sam Sing G +o#, whihmotion was denied in the order dated 24 Culy19)9# A similar motion was !resented to the0ustie of the !eae of Sagay on 28 Otober19)9 but was denied the ne.t day# Meanwhile,an information dated )7 Se!tember 19)9 hadbeen filed in the +F Oidental Degros,harging ee Fo& alias ee Sue Joy, # i! andA# Sing, managers of Sam Sing G +o#, with a$iolation of At 2/55# efore the riminal ase

ould be tried, ee Sue Joy and ee i! filedthe !etition with the Su!reme +ourt on /Do$ember 19)9# he !etition is grounded onthe !ro!ositions :1; that the searh warrantissued on 2 May 19)stradawhih is insuffiient in itself to 0ustify theissuane of a searh warrant, and beause theissuane of said warrant manifestly ontra$enesthe mandatory !ro$isions both of setion 1,!aragra!h ), of Artile of the +onstitution andof setion 98 of "eneral Orders 5strada sworethat they had !ersonal &nowledge, theiraffida$its were suffiient for, thereunder, theyould be held liable for !er0ury if the fats wouldturn out to be not as their were stated underoath# hat the e.istene of !robable ause hadbeen determined by the 0ustie of the !eae ofSagay before issuing the searh warrantom!lained of, is shown by the followingstatement in the warrant itself, to witH @Aftere.amination under oath of the om!lainant,Mariano "# Almeda, +hief Agent of the Anti=Usury oard, -e!artment of Custie and S!eialAgent of the 'hili!!ine Army, Manila, and thewitness he !resented, # # # and this +ourt,finding that there is 0ust and !robable ause to

belie$e as it does belie$e, that the abo$edesribed artiles, relating to the ati$ities ofsaid Sam Sing G +o# of lending money atusurious rate of interest, are being utili%ed and&e!t and onealed at its store and !remises


19/27

19

ou!ied by said Sam Sing G +o#, all in $iolationof law#

Alvarez vs. o#r o7 Firs "nsance o7@ayaas [GR 4)3)(, 29 *an#ary 193]5irst Division, 7m#erial (J): 4 concur

Facs!On ) Cune 19)/, the hief of the seretser$ie of the Anti=Usury oard, of the-e!artment of Custie, !resented to Cudge>duardo "utierre% -a$id then !residing o$erthe +ourt of First nstane of ayabas, anaffida$it alleging that aording to reliableinformation, Dariso Al$are% &e!t in his house innfanta, ayabas, boo&s, douments, reei!ts,lists, hits and other !a!ers used by him inonnetion with his ati$ities as a moneylender,harging usurious rates of interest in $iolationof the law# n his oath at the end of the affida$it,the hief of the seret ser$ie stated that his

answers to the 3uestions were orret to thebest of his &nowledge and belief# 6e did notswear to the truth of his statements u!on hisown &nowledge of the fats but u!on theinformation reei$ed by him from a reliable!erson# U!on the affida$it the 0udge, on saiddate, issued the warrant whih is the sub0etmatter of the !etition, ordering the searh ofthe Al$are%*s house at any time of the day ornight, the sei%ure of the boo&s and doumentsand the immediate deli$ery thereof to him to bedis!osed of in aordane with the law# ithsaid warrant, se$eral agents of the Anti=Usury

oard entered Al$are%*s store and residene at8H77 !#m# of 4 Cune 19)/, and sei%ed and too&!ossession of the following artilesH internalre$enue lienses for the years 19)) to 19)/, 1ledger, 2 0ournals, 2 ashboo&s, 9 order boo&s,4 noteboo&s, 4 he& stubs, 2 memorandums, )ban&boo&s, 2 ontrats, 4 stubs, 4< stubs of!urhases of o!ra, 2 in$entories, 2 bundles ofbills of lading, 1 bundle of redit reei!ts, 1bundle of stubs of !urhases of o!ra, 2!a&ages of orres!ondene, 1 reei!t boo&belonging to uis Fernande%, 14 bundles ofin$oies and other !a!ers, many doumentsand loan ontrats with seurity and !romissorynotes, 574 hits, !romissory notes and stubs ofused he&s of the 6ong&ong G Shanghaian&ing +or!oration :6S+;# he searh for andsei%ure of said artiles were made with theo!!osition of Al$are% who stated his !rotestbelow the in$entories on the ground that theagents sei%ed e$en the originals of thedouments# As the artiles had not beenbrought immediately to the 0udge who issuedthe searh warrant, Al$are%, through hisattorney, filed a motion on < Cune 19)/, !raying

that the agent >milio # Siongo, or any otheragent, be ordered immediately to de!osit all thesei%ed artiles in the offie of the ler& of ourtand that said agent be delared guilty ofontem!t for ha$ing disobeyed the order of theourt# On said date the ourt issued an order

direting Siongo to de!osit all the artilessei%ed within 24 hours from the reei!t ofnotie thereof and gi$ing him a !eriod of 5 dayswithin whih to show ause why he should notbe !unished for ontem!t of ourt# On 17 Cune,Attorney Arsenio (odrigue%, re!resenting theAnti=Usury oard, filed a motion !raying thatthe order of the


20/27

27

&nowledge of the fats whih were to ser$e as abasis for the issuane of the warrant but that hehad &nowledge thereof through mereinformation seured from a !erson whom heonsidered reliable, and that it is illegal as itwas not su!!orted by other affida$its asidefrom that made by the a!!liant#

$el%!Setion 1, !aragra!h ), of Artile of the+onstitution and Setion 98 of "eneral Orders5< re3uire that there be not only !robableause before the issuane of a searh warrantbut that the searh warrant must be basedu!on an a!!liation su!!orted by oath of thea!!liant and the witnesses he may !rodue# nits broadest sense, an oath inludes any form ofattestation by whih a !arty signifies that he isbound in onsiene to !erform an at faithfullyand truthfully and it is sometimes defined as anoutward !ledge gi$en by the !erson ta&ing it

that his attestation or !romise is made under animmediate sense of his res!onsibility to "od#he oath re3uired must refer to the truth of thefats within the !ersonal &nowledge of the!etitioner or his witnesses, beause the !ur!osethereof is to on$ine the ommittingmagistrate, not the indi$idual ma&ing theaffida$it and see&ing the issuane of thewarrant, of the e.istene of !robable ause# hetrue test of suffiieny of an affida$it to warrantissuane of a searh warrant is whether it hasbeen drawn in suh a manner that !er0ury ouldbe harged thereon and affiant be held liable

for damages aused# he affida$it, whih ser$edas the e.lusi$e basis of the searh warrant, isinsuffiient and fatally defeti$e by reason ofthe manner in whih the oath was made, andtherefore, the searh warrant and thesubse3uent sei%ure of the boo&s, doumentsand other !a!ers are illegal# Further, it is the!ratie in this 0urisdition to attah theaffida$it of at least the a!!liant or om!lainantto the a!!liation# t is admitted that the 0udgewho issued the searh warrant in this ase,relied e.lusi$ely u!on the affida$it made byagent Almeda and that he did not re3uire nor

ta&e the de!osition of any other witness#Deither the +onstitution nor "eneral Orders 5

nasmuh as the affida$it of the agent wasinsuffiient beause his &nowledge of the fatswas not !ersonal but merely hearsay, it is theduty of the 0udge to re3uire the affida$it of oneor more witnesses for the !ur!ose ofdetermining the e.istene of !robable ause to

warrant the issuane of the searh warrant#hen the affida$it of the a!!liant orom!lainant ontains suffiient fats within his!ersonal and diret &nowledge, it is suffiient ifthe 0udge is satisfied that there e.ists !robableause when the a!!liant*s &nowledge of thefats is mere hearsay, the affida$it of one ormore witnesses ha$ing a !ersonal &nowledge ofthe fats is neessary# hus the warrant issuedis li&ewise illegal beause it was based only onthe affida$it of the agent who had no !ersonal&nowledge of the fats#

Maa vs. +ayona [GR )2, 26 Marc19(4]2econd Division, de %astro (J): 3 concur, concur in result, ! too no #art

Facs! Soriano Mata was aused under'residential -eree :'-;


21/27

21

"ss#e!hether the 0udge must before issuingthe warrant !ersonally e.amine on oath oraffirmation the om!lainant and any witnesseshe may !rodue and ta&e their de!ositions inwriting, and attah them to the reord, inaddition to any affida$its !resented to him#

$el%! Under the +onstitution @no searhwarrant shall issue but u!on !robable ause tobe determined by the Cudge or suh otherres!onsible offier as may be authori%ed by lawafter e.amination under oath or affirmation ofthe om!lainant and the witnesses he may!rodue# More em!hati and detailed is theim!lementing rule of the onstitutionalin0untion, he (ules !ro$ide that the 0udgemust before issuing the warrant !ersonallye.amine on oath or affirmation the om!lainantand any witnesses he may !rodue and ta&etheir de!ositions in writing, and attah them to

the reord, in addition to any affida$its!resented to him# Mere affida$its of theom!lainant and his witnesses are thus notsuffiient# he e.amining Cudge has to ta&ede!ositions in writing of the om!lainant andthe witnesses he may !rodue and to attahthem to the reord# Suh written de!osition isneessary in order that the Cudge may be ableto !ro!erly determine the e.istene ornone.istene of the !robable ause, to holdliable for !er0ury the !erson gi$ing it if it will befound later that his delarations are false# e,therefore, hold that the searh warrant is

tainted with illegality by the failure of the Cudgeto onform with the essential re3uisites ofta&ing the de!ositions in writing and attahingthem to the reord, rendering the searhwarrant in$alid#


22/27

22

and atis at the ground floor and other roomsat the ground floor :b; offie of the 'resident,-r# Demesio 'rudente at 'U', Seond Floor andother rooms at the seond floor, and forthwithsei%e and ta&e !ossession of the following!ersonal !ro!erties, to witH :a; M 1/ Armaliteswith ammunition :b; #)< and #45 +aliberhandguns and !istols :; e.!losi$es and handgrenades and :d; assorted wea!ons withammunitions# On 1 Do$ember 19dgar -ula orre, -e!uty Su!erintendent,'-, and 'BMa0or (omeo Maganto, 'reint letronisand @Sony Merhandising :'hili!!ines; storesloated at /97 and /91 "on%alo 'uyat orner>$angelista Street, Iuia!o, Manila, a letter=re3uest dated 2) A!ril 198/ was addressed tothe +olletor of +ustoms by the -e!uty -iretorof the (egional Anti=Smuggling Ation +enter,Manila ay Area :(ASA+=MA; for the issuaneof warrants of sei%ure and detention# Aftere$aluation, the +olletor of +ustoms issuedarrants of Sei%ure and -etention 14925 and14925=A, direting the Anti=Smuggling Ation+enter to sei%e the goods mentioned therein,i#e# $arious eletroni e3ui!ments li&e assetteta!e reorders, ar stereos, !honogra!hneedles :diamond;, !ortable sets, im!ortedlong !laying reords, s!are !arts of s andradios and other eletrial a!!lianes# A (ASA+

team was formed and gi$en a mission order toenfore the warrants, whih it im!lementedwith the assistane ofH :1; the Dational +ustoms'olie :augmenting the team with 2 members;,:2; the -eteti$e ureau of the Manila estern'olie -istrit 6ead3uarters :with ) deteti$es;,as well as, :); 'reint ) of the Manila estern'olie -istrit whih e.erised 0urisditionalontrol o$er the !lae to be raided# heintended raid was entered in the res!eti$e!olie blotters of the !olie deteti$e bureaus#On the strength of the warrants of sei%ure anddetention, the raid was onduted in the

afternoon of 25 A!ril 198/ at the 2 stores ofomas +hia# ASA+ team leader "ener Sula,together with his agents adron -obli, ArturoManuel, (odolfo Molina and Ser$illano Florentinof +am! Aguinaldo, Iue%on +ity, assisted bytwo ustoms !oliemen, al Martine% and(enato Sorima, and Manila !oliemen (ogelioinas and Cohn 'eralta, reo$ered from thestores, assorted eletroni e3ui!ment and otherartiles, the ustoms duties on whih allegedlyhad not been !aid# hey were turned o$er tothe +ustoms Aution and +argo -is!osal Unit ofthe ureau of +ustoms# On 18 May 198/, in the

afternoon, the hearing offier of Ating +olletorof +ustoms Alfredo Franiso onduted ahearing on the onfisation of the goods ta&enby "ener Sula and his agents# 2 days later, +hiafiled the !etition for ertiorari, !rohibition andmandamus before the Su!reme +ourt to en0ointhe +olletor of +ustoms andBor his agents fromfurther !roeeding with the forfeiture hearingand !rayed that the searh warrants bedelared null and $oid, that the latter beordered to return the onfisated artiles to+hia, and to !ay damages#

"ss#e! hether the warrants issued by the+olletor of +ustoms !arta&es the nature of ageneral warrants, and thus are in$alid#

$el%!Dot only may goods be sei%ed without asearh and sei%ure warrant under Setion 25)/of the +ustoms and ariff +ode, when they :thegoods; are o!enly offered for sale or &e!t instorage in a store as herein, but the fat is that+hia*s stores K @om*s >letronis and @SonyMerhandising :'hil#; K were searhed u!onwarrants of searh and detention issued by the+olletor of +ustoms, who, under the 198)+onstitution, was @a res!onsible offierauthori%ed by law to issue them# Setions 227duardo M# arreto,(aul Sagullo, and Fortune edesma# hea!!liations were onsolidated and heard bythe (egional rial +ourt :(+; of Ma&ati, ranh1)2# On 4 Se!tember 19


25/27

25

!re$iously been issued against Dolaso# At12H77 noon on the same day, elements of the+S" searhed the !remises at 2)9= MayonStreet, Iue%on +ity# illie +# olentino, a!erson then in harge of the !remises, wasarrested by the searhing !arty !resumablywithout a warrant of arrest# he searhing !artysei%ed 42< douments and written materials,and additionally a !ortable ty!ewriter, and 2wooden bo.es, ma&ing 4)1 items in all# OnAugust 17, Aguilar=(o3ue, Dolaso andolentino, were harged before the Iue%on +ityFisal*s Offie u!on om!laint filed by the +S"against the former for @Sub$ersionB(ebellionandBor +ons!iray to +ommit(ebellionBSub$ersion# On August 1), the +ityFisal filed an nformation for iolation of'residential -eree :'-; )) :llegal 'ossessionof Sub$ersi$e -ouments; against Aguilar=(o3ue, et# al# before ranh 42 of the

Metro!olitan rial +ourt of Iue%on +ity, CudgeAntonio '# Santos, !residing# On August 1/, +S"filed a Motion for (eonsideration with the +ityFisal, !raying that Aguilar=(o3ue and Dolasobe harged with Sub$ersion# he Motion wasdenied on Do$ember 1/# On Se!tember 17, the+S" submitted an Amended (eturn in theSearh arrant ase !raying, inter alia, that the+S" be allowed to retain the sei%ed 4)1douments and artiles, @in onnetion withases that are !resently !ending against MilaAguilar (o3ue before the Iue%on +ity Fisal*sOffie and the ourt# On -eember 1), Cudge

'ao admitted the Amended (eturn and ruledthat the sei%ed douments @shall be sub0et todis!osition of the tribunal trying the aseagainst res!ondent# A day before that, Aguilar=(o3ue, et# al# filed a Motion to Su!!ress,!raying that suh of the 4)1 items belonging tothem be returned to them# t was laimed thatthe !roeedings under the Searh arrant wereunlawful# Cudge Santos denied the Motion on 8Canuary 19


26/27

2/

Military +ommission 1 to return to her any allirrele$ant douments and artiles#

&a'er "n%#sries or'oraion o7 e&ili''ines vs. As#ncion [GR 12292, 19May 1999]Third Division, 8angani/an (J): 3 concur, ! too

no #art

Facs! On 25 Canuary 1995, 'olie +hiefns!etor Da!oleon # 'asua a!!lied for asearh warrant before the (egional rial +ourt:(+;, ranh 174, of Iue%on +ity, stating @:1;that the management of 'a!er ndustries+or!oration of the 'hili!!ines, loated at '+O'om!ound, arangay abon, islig, Surigao delSur, re!resented by its Sr# ie 'resident(iardo "# Santiago, is in !ossession or has inits ontrol high !owered firearms, ammunitions,e.!losi$es, whih are the sub0et of the offense,

or used or intended to be used in ommittingthe offense, and whih are being &e!t andonealed in the !remises herein desribed :2;that a Searh arrant should be issued toenable any agent of the law to ta&e !ossessionand bring to this 6onorable +ourt the followingdesribed !ro!ertiesH RSe$enty :87; M1/Armalite rifles al# 5#5/, ten :17; M1/ US rifles,two :2; AJ=48 rifleLs, two :2; U?submahinegunLs, two :2; M27) "renadeaunherLs al 47mm#, ten :17; al# 45!istolLs, ten :17; al# )< re$ol$erLs, two :2;ammunition reloading mahineLs, assorted

ammunitions for said alibers of firearms andten :17; handgrenades#* he 0oint -e!osition ofS'O) +iero S# aolod and S'O2 +eilio #Morito, as well as a summary of the informationand the su!!lementary statements of Mario>nad and Feli!e Moreno were attahed to thea!!liation# After !ro!ounding se$eral3uestions to aolod, Cudge Ma.imiano +#Asunion issued the ontested searh warrant#On 4 February 1995, the !olie enfored thesearh warrant at the '+O' om!ound andsei%ed $arious firearms and ammunition#elie$ing that the warrant was in$alid and thesearh unreasonable, 'a!er ndustries+or!oration of the 'hili!!ines, >$aristo M#Dar$ae% Cr#, (iardo "# Santiago, (oberto A#-ormendo, (eydande -# A%uena, Dieforo #A$ila, Florentino M# Mula, Feli. O# aito, 6arold# +elestial, >lmedenio +# +ali.tro, +arlito S#egaion, Albino # ubang, Ceremias # Abadand 6erminio # illamil filed a @Motion toIuash 1/ before the trial ourt# Subse3uently,they also filed a @Su!!lemental 'leading to theMotion to Iuash and a @Motion to Su!!ress>$idene# On 2) Marh 1995, the (+ issued

the Order whih denied '+O', et# al#*s motions#On ) August 1995, the trial ourt rendered itsOrder denying their Motion for (eonsideration#'+O', et# al# filed a 'etition for +ertiorari and'rohibition#

"ss#e! hether the fat that the warrantidentifies only one !lae, i#e# the @'a!erndustries +or!oration of the 'hili!!ines,loated at '+O' +om!ound, arangay abon,islig, Surigao del Sur, satisfies there3uirements of the !artiularity of the !lae tobe searh, and thus render the warrant $alid#

$el%! Do# he fundamental right againstunreasonable searhes and sei%ures and thebasi onditions for the issuane of a searhwarrant are laid down in Setion 2, Artile ofthe 19


27/27

28

'+O' om!ound, howe$er, is made u! of @277offiesBbuildings, 15 !lants, .lusion of unlawfully sei%ede$idene is the only !ratial means ofenforing the onstitutional in0untion againstunreasonable searhes and sei%ures# 6ene, thesearh made at A!artment Do# < is illegal andthe #45 aliber !istol ta&en thereat isinadmissible in e$idene against Al="houl, et#al# n ontrast, the searh onduted atA!artment 2 ould not be similarly faulted# he

searh warrants s!eifially mentionedA!artment 2# he searh was done in the!resene of its ou!ants, in aordane withSetion 8 of (ule 12/, (e$ised (ules of +ourt#he artiles sei%ed during the searh ofA!artment 2 are of the same &ind and nature asthose items enumerated in the searh warrant#he items sei%ed from A!artment 2 weredesribed with s!eifiity in the warrants in3uestion# he nature of the items ordered to besei%ed did not re3uire a tehnial desri!tion#Moreo$er, the law does not re3uire that thethings to be sei%ed must be desribed in !reiseand minute details as to lea$e no room fordoubt on the !art of the searhing authorities,otherwise, it would be $irtually im!ossible forthe a!!liants to obtain a searh warrant asthey would not &now e.atly what &ind of thingsthey are loo&ing for# One desribed, howe$er,the artiles sub0et of the searh and sei%ureneed not be so in$ariant as to re3uire absoluteonordane between those sei%ed and thosedesribed in the warrant# Substantial similarityof those artiles desribed as a lass or s!eieswould suffie#

28235802 constitutional law ii cases arrest searches and seizures

Documents