Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FACTS:
The documents, papers, and things seized under the alleged authority
of the warrants in question may be split into (2) major groups, namely:
1) those found and seized in the offices of the
aforementioned corporations and
2) those found seized in the residences of petitioners herein.
Search warrants issued were violative of the Constitution and the Rules,
thus, illegal or being general warrants.
There is no probable cause and warrant did not particularly specify the
things to be seized.
PEOPLE VS MARTI
FACTS:
Issues:
1)
2)
3)
Held:
It was Mr. Job Reyes, the proprietor of the forwarding agency, who
made search/inspection of the packages.
Said inspection was reasonable and a standard operating procedure on
the part of Mr. Reyes as a precautionary measure before delivery of
packages to the Bureau of Customs or the Bureau of Posts.
Second, the mere presence of the NBI agents did not convert the
reasonable search effected by Reyes into a warrantless search and
seizure proscribed by the Constitution.
Merely to observe and look at that which is in plain sight is not a
search.
Having observed that which is open, where no trespass has been
committed in aid thereof, is not search.
The law enforcers testified that accused/appellant was informed of his
constitutional rights. It is presumed that they have regularly performed
their duties (See. 5(m), Rule 131) and their testimonies should be given
full faith and credence, there being no evidence to the contrary.
Appellant signed the contract as the owner and shipper thereof giving
more weight to the presumption that things which a person possesses,
or exercises acts of ownership over, are owned by him (Sec. 5 [j], Rule
131).
At this point, appellant is therefore estopped to claim otherwise.
The Supreme Court held based on the speech of Commissioner Bernas
that the Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the individual
and the state.
The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures
therefore applies as a restraint directed only against the government
and its agencies tasked with the enforcement of the law. It is not meant
to be invoked against acts of private individuals. It will be recalled that
Mr Job Reyes was the one who opened the box in the presence of the
NBI agents in his place of business. The mere presence of the NBI
agents did not convert the reasonable search effected by Mr. Reyes into
a warrantless search and siezure proscribed by the constitution. Merely
to observe and look at that which is in plain sight is not a search.
The judgement of conviction finding appeallant guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime charged was AFFIRMED.
KATZ V US
FACTS:
The agents listened only to Katz's conversations, and only to the parts
of his conversations dealing with illegal gambling transactions.
At his trial, Katz sought to exclude any evidence connected with these
wiretaps, arguing that the warrantless wiretapping of a public phone
booth constitutes an unreasonable search of a "constitutionally
protected area" in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The federal agents countered by saying that a public phone booth was
not a "constitutionally protected area," therefore, they could place a
wiretap on it without a warrant.
ISSUE: Does the warrantless wiretapping of a public phone booth violate the
unreasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment to the United
States Constitution?
HELD: YES
However, the Fourth Amendment protects persons and not places from
unreasonable intrusion.
Although the petitioner did not seek to hide his self from public view
when he entered the telephone booth, he did seek to keep out the
uninvited ear.
A person who enters into a telephone booth may expect the protection
of the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution as he assumes that the
words he utters into the telephone will not be broadcast to the world.
the U.S. Supreme Court agreed with Katz and held that placing of a
warrantless wiretap on a public phone booth constitutes an
unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Potter Stewart, however, did not
address the case from the perspective of a "constitutionally protected
area." In essence, the majority argued that both sides in the case were
wrong to think that the permissibility of a warrantless wiretap
depended upon the area being placed under surveillance. "
For the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places. What a person
knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not
a subject of Fourth Amendment protection . . . . But what he seeks to
preserve as private even in an area accessible to the public, may be
constitutionally protected," the Court stated.
Building upon this reasoning, the Court held that it was the duty of the
Judiciary to review petitions for warrants in instances in which persons
may be engaging in conduct that they wish to keep secret, even if it
were done in a public place.
The Court held that, in the absence of a judicially authorized search
warrant, the wiretaps of the public phone booth used by Katz were
illegal.
Therefore, the evidence against him gathered from his conversations
should be suppressed.
All
printing
equipment,
paraphernalia,
paper,
ink,
photo
(equipment,
typewriters,
cabinets,
tables,
communications/recording equipment, tape recorders, dictaphone and
the like used and/or connected in the printing of the WE FORUM
newspaper and any and all documents communication, letters and
facsimile of prints related to the WE FORUM newspaper.
ISSUES:
1)
2)
HELD:
The correct remedy for petitioners was to file a motion to quash the
search warrants Indeed, petitioners, before impugning the validity of
the warrants before this Court, should have filed a motion to quash said
warrants in the court that issued them (Templo v. Dela Cruz, 60 SCRA
295 [1974]).
amended is a mere conclusion of law and does not satisfy the requi
rements of probable cause.
Probable cause for issuance of a search warrant must be based
on personal knowledge of the applicant or his witness Equally
insufficient as basis for the determination of probable cause is the
statement contained in the joint affidavit of Alejandro M. Gutierrez and
Pedro U. Tango, that the evidence gathered and collated by our unit
clearly shows that the premises above-mentioned and the articles and
things above- described were used and are continuously being used for
subversive activities in conspiracy with, and to promote the objective
of, illegal organizations such as the Light-a-Fire Movement, Movement
for Free Philippines, and April 6 Movement.
In mandating that no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause
to be determined by the judge, after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce; the
Constitution requires no less than personal knowledge by the
complainant or his witnesses of the facts upon which the issuance of a
search warrant may be justified.
In Alvarez v. Court of First Instance (64 Phil. 33), this Court ruled that
the oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the
personal knowledge of the petitioner or his witnesses, because the
purpose thereof is to convince the committing magistrate, not the
individual making the affidavit and seeking the issuance of the warrant,
of the existence of probable cause.
General warrants are unconstitutional Another factor which makes the
search warrants under consideration constitutionally objectionable is
that they are in the nature of general warrants.
In Stanford v. State of Texas the search warrant which authorized the
search for books, records, pamphlets, cards, receipts, lists,
memoranda, pictures, recordings and other written instruments
concerning the Communist Party in Texas, was declared void by the
U.S. Supreme Court for being too general.
In like manner, directions to seize any evidence in connection with the
violation of SDC 13-3703 or otherwise have been held too general, and
that portion of a search warrant which authorized the seizure of any
paraphernalia which could be used to violate Sec. 54-197 of the
Connecticut General Statutes [the statute dealing with the crime of
conspiracy] was held to be a general warrant, and therefore invalid.
The description of the articles sought to be seized under the search
warrants in question cannot be characterized differently.
The closure of the business premises of the Metropolitan Mail and
We Forum newspapers violates the constitutionally guaranteed
freedom of the press As heretofore stated, the premises searched
were the business and printing offices of the Metropolitan Mail and
the We Forum newspapers.
As a consequence of the search and seizure, these premises were
padlocked and sealed, with the further result that the printing and
publication of said newspapers were discontinued.
Such closure is in the nature of previous restraint or censorship
abhorrent to the freedom of the press guaranteed under the
On Dec. 13, 1988, P/Lt. Abello was tipped off by his informant that a
certain Aling Rosa will be arriving from Baguio City with a large
volume of marijuana and assembled a team.
The next day, at the Victory Liner Bus terminal they waited for the bus
coming from Baguio, when the informer pointed out who Aling Rosa
was, the team approached her and introduced themselves as NARCOM
agents.
When Abello asked aling Rosa about the contents of her bag, the
latter handed it out to the police.
Issue: Whether or Not the police correctly searched and seized the drugs from
the accused.
Held: NO
The SC ruled in favor of Aruta and has noted that some drug traffickers
are being freed due to technicalities. Aruta cannot be said to be
committing a crime.
Neither was she about to commit one nor had she just committed a
crime.
Aruta was merely crossing the street and was not acting in any manner
that would engender a reasonable ground for the NARCOM agents to
suspect and conclude that she was committing a crime.
It was only when the informant pointed to Aruta and identified her to
the agents as the carrier of the marijuana that she was singled out as
the suspect.
The NARCOM agents would not have apprehended Aruta were it not for
the furtive finger of the informant because, as clearly illustrated by the
evidence on record, there was no reason whatsoever for them to
suspect that accused-appellant was committing a crime, except for the
pointing finger of the informant.
The SC could neither sanction nor tolerate as it is a clear violation of
the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure.
Neither was there any semblance of any compliance with the rigid
requirements of probable cause and warrantless arrests.
Consequently, there was no legal basis for the NARCOM agents to effect
a warrantless search of Arutas bag, there being no probable cause and
the accused-appellant not having been lawfully arrested.
Stated otherwise, the arrest being incipiently illegal, it logically follows
that the subsequent search was similarly illegal, it being not incidental
to a lawful arrest.
The constitutional guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure
must perforce operate in favor of accused-appellant.
As such, the articles seized could not be used as evidence against
accused-appellant for these are fruits of a poisoned tree and,
therefore, must be rejected, pursuant to Article III, Sec. 3(2) of the
Constitution.
The following cases are specifically provided or allowed by law:
1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest recognized
under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court 8 and by
prevailing jurisprudence
2. Seizure of evidence in "plain view," the elements of which
are: (a) a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless
arrest in which the police are legally present in the pursuit of
their official duties; (b) the evidence was inadvertently
discovered by the police who had the right to be where they
are; (c) the evidence must be immediately apparent, and (d)
"plain view" justified mere seizure of evidence without further
search;
3. Search of a moving vehicle. Highly regulated by the
government, the vehicle's inherent mobility reduces
expectation of privacy especially when its transit in public
thoroughfares furnishes a highly reasonable suspicion
amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed a
criminal activity;
4. Consented warrantless search;
5. Customs search;
6. Stop and Frisk;
7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances.
The essential requisite of probable cause must still be satisfied before a
warrantless search and seizure can be lawfully conducted.
The accused cannot be said to be committing a crime, she was merely
crossing the street and was not acting suspiciously for the Narcom
agents to conclude that she was committing a crime. There was no
legal basis to effect a warrantless arrest of the accuseds bag, there
was no probable cause and the accused was not lawfully arrested.
The police had more than 24 hours to procure a search warrant and
they did not do so. The seized marijuana was illegal and inadmissible
evidence.