QUESTIONS PRESENTED

I. WHETHER THERE IS SUFFICIENT PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT PROF.

EDGARDO IS GUILTY OF “TERRORISM AND CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT
TERRORISM” UNDER R.A. NO. 9372 ENTITLED “AN ACT TO SECURE THE STATE
AND PROTECT OUR PEOPLE FROM TERRORISM.”
II. WHETHER THE TAPPING, LISTENING, INTERCEPTING AND RECORDING OF
PROF. EDGARDO’S ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS WAS ILLEGAL FOR BEING
VIOLATIVE OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND DUE PROCESS.
III. WHETHER THE SEIZURE OF PROF. EDGARDO’S PERSONAL COMPUTERS,
CELLPHONES AND OTHER ELECTRONIC GADGETS VIOLATED HIS
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT AGAINST ILLEGAL SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.
 ARGUMENT

I. THERE IS SUFFICIENT PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT PROF. EDGARDO IS

GUILTY OF TERRORISM AND CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TERRORISM.

A. THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT MEMBERS OF THE DDS

ARE GUILTY OF TERRORISM AND CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT TERRORISM.

The crimes of “terrorism and conspiracy to commit terrorism” are punishable under
Sections 3 and 4 of R.A. No. 9372:

“SEC. 3. Terrorism.- Any person who commits an act punishable under any of the
following provisions of the Revised Penal Code:

xx
b. Article 134 (Rebellion or Insurrection);
c. Article 134-a (Coup d' Etat), including acts committed by private persons;
d. Article 248 (Murder);
e. Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention);
f. Article 324 (Crimes Involving Destruction)
xx

thereby sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic
among the populace, in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand
shall be guilty of the crime of terrorism and shall suffer the penalty of forty (40) years of
imprisonment, without the benefit of parole as provided for under Act No. 4103,
otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.”

“SEC. 4. Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism. - Persons who conspire to commit the crime of
terrorism shall suffer the penalty of forty (40) years of imprisonment.”

From the definition of the crime of terrorism in the earlier cited Section 3 of RA 9372,
the following elements may be culled: (1) the offender commits an act punishable under any of the
cited provisions of the Revised Penal Code, or under any of the enumerated special penal laws; (2)
the commission of the predicate crime sows and creates a condition of widespread and extraordinary
fear and panic among the populace; and (3) the offender is actuated by the desire to coerce the
government to give in to an unlawful demand1.

The first element of the crime of terrorism is that the offender commits an act
punishable under the Revised Penal Code or any of the enumerated special laws. DDS is suspected
of orchestrating the bombings of a shopping center in Manila and the houses of two Senators in
November 2014 and January 2016, respectively. Multiple lives were claimed and several others
were injured aside from the destruction of structures as a result of the attacks perpetrated through
the use of explosives. Such acts constitute “Crimes involving destruction” punishable under the
Revised Penal Code2. The elements of such crime are3:
(1) the offender causes destruction; and
(2) the destruction is caused by any of the following means:
a) Explosion
xx
g) Using any other agency or means of destruction as effective as those above
enumerated.
In the case at hand, the first element is present. The offenders in both bombing
instances used explosives as evidenced by the Laboratory report indicating traces of black powder to
carry out their criminal resolution. The totality of the facts however, suggests that there was no
intent to kill on the part of the offender. The main objective of the DDS is to cause destruction to
unduly force the Government to give in to their demands. Hence, the resulting incidental deaths
which would have constituted the crime of murder qualified by the use of explosives is deemed
absorbed4. Nevertheless, whether the criminal acts constitute the crime of Murder or Crimes
Involving Destruction is inconsequential in determining the existence of the first element under
Section 3 of R.A. No. 9372 since only one of them or any of the enumerated crimes will suffice.

Unsatisfied, suspected DDS leader Aldo Bautista even wrote a threatening post in FB:

The so-called “lawful” avenues of the government dogs have failed. If they will not hear us
properly, we will force them to hear with fire and brimstone. The oppression of the
government must be stopped. –Brother Aldy

1 Southern Hemisphere Engagement Network, Inc. v. Anti-Terrorism Council, G.R. No. 178552.
October 5, 2010.
2
Art. 324. Revised Penal Code
3
JBL Reyes Crim book page 912 (will edit)
4
People vs. Malingan, G.R. No. 170470, September 26, 2006.
 Such post was read and shared by the general populace. Hence, it can be gleaned that
Bautista’s goal of instilling extraordinary fear and panic on the public was achieved. The post is also
indicative of the group’s desire to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand, which is
to dismantle the Republic of the Philippines, and of the capitalist economy. The demand is even
accompanied by further threats of “fire and brimstone” in case of failure to heed such demand. Such
facts led us to believe that the second and third elements of Terrorism are likewise present.

B. PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION NO. 626 WHICH THEREBY DECLARED

DDS AS AN OUTLAWED TERRORIST ORGANIZATION HAS LAWFUL BASIS

The President declared DDS as a terrorist organization pursuant to Section 17 of R.A.

No. 9372 which provides:
“SEC. 17. Proscription of Terrorist Organizations, Association, or Group of Persons. -
Any organization, association, or group of persons organized for the purpose of engaging
in terrorism, or which, although not organized for that purpose, actually uses the acts to
terrorize mentioned in this Act or to sow and create a condition of widespread and
extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to
give in to an unlawful demand shall, upon application of the Department of Justice
before a competent Regional Trial Court, with due notice and opportunity to be heard
given to the organization, association, or group of persons concerned, be declared as a
terrorist and outlawed organization, association, or group of persons by the said
Regional Trial Court.”

The provision above provides that the DOJ under the Office of the President may validly
file an application to judicially declare “any organization, association, or group of persons organized
for the purpose of engaging in terrorism” as a terrorist organization. We have already discussed in
detail that there is probable cause to believe that the members constituting DDS group are guilty of
Terrorism and Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism. Hence, there are lawful grounds for the
Presidential Declaration of DDS as a terrorist group.

C. PERSONS ASSOCIATED WITH OR A MEMBER OF A TERRORIST GROUP

PROVIDES PROBABLE CAUSE THAT THEY TOO ARE GUILTY OF THE
CRIMES AS CHARGED.
 Having established that DDS is a terrorist organization and the members thereof are
probably guilty of Terrorism and Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism, membership or mere association
in the group gives probable cause that he is likewise guilty of such crimes. As discussed in Pilapil v.
Sandiganbayan5:
“The term probable cause does not mean “actual and positive cause” nor does it import
absolute certainty. It is merely based on opinion and reasonable belief. Thus, a finding of
probable cause does not require an inquiry into whether there is sufficient evidence to
procure a conviction. It is enough that it is believed that the act or omission complained
of constitutes the offense charged. Precisely, there is a trial for the reception of evidence
of the prosecution in support of the charge.”

In the present case, (La Verne lagay mo dito yung application ng probable cause
sa kanya. Bale more of based sa FB at tapped communications sabihin mo
nalang din na we will discuss in detail in the next portion of this document
why the tapping is valid. May discussion din si Laverne sa pinasa kay coach
pweds ka refer dun. Bale i-implicate na natin si prof Edgardo dito) lagay mo
yung mga ‘nice fam’ arguments mo LOL

II. THE TAPPING, LISTENING, INTERCEPTING AND RECORDING OF PROF. EDGARDO’S

ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS WERE LEGAL.

A. THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY MAY BE SET ASIDE FOR PURPOSES OF PUBLIC

SAFETY, AS PRESCRIBED BY LAW.

The Constitution guarantees the people’s right to privacy against Governmental abuse 6.
The right to privacy is defined as “the right to be free from unwarranted exploitation of one’s person
or from intrusion into one’s private activities in such a way as to cause humiliation to a person’s
ordinary sensibilities.”7 While the Bill of Rights recognizes the right of the people to be left alone in
their personal affairs, such right is not absolute. The framers of the Constitution surely had
anticipated the dangers of enshrining the absolute inviolability of the people’s right to privacy when

5
G.R. No. 101978, 7 April 1993, 221 SCRA 349
6 Section 3 (1), Article III of the Constitution provides:
Section 3. (1) The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except
upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by
law.
7 Social Justice Society (SJS) v. Dangerous Drugs Board, G.R. Nos. 157870, 158633 & 161658,

November 3, 2008, 570 SCRA 410, 431.

they incorporated the clause “except upon lawful order of the court, or when public safety or order
requires otherwise, as prescribed by law.8”
RA No. 9372 and R.A. No. 4200 define instances wherein the Government may intrude
into one’s communications and correspondence. Section 3 of R.A. No. 4200 provides:
“Sec. 3 (1). Nothing contained in this Act, however, shall render it unlawful or
punishable for any peace officer, who is authorized by a written order of the Court, to
execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the two preceding sections in
cases involving the crimes of treason, espionage, provoking war and disloyalty in case
of war, piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit
rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to
sedition, kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal Code, and violations of
Commonwealth Act No. 616, punishing espionage and other offenses against
national security: Provided, That such written order shall only be issued or
granted upon written application and the examination under oath or
affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce and a showing:
(1) that there are reasonable grounds to believe that any of the crimes
enumerated hereinabove has been committed or is being committed or is about
to be committed: Provided, however, That in cases involving the offenses of
rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion,
sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, and inciting to sedition, such authority
shall be granted only upon prior proof that a rebellion or acts of sedition, as the
case may be, have actually been or are being committed; (2) that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that evidence will be obtained essential to the
conviction of any person for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention of, any
such crimes; and (3) that there are no other means readily available for
obtaining such evidence.”

In this case,

(Ramil, explain section 8 of 9372 na pag suspected of terrorism or conspiracy

to commit terrorism, pwede mag apply before the CA (eto ginawa nila based sa
facts) ng wiretapping. Also explain in detail how A, B and C of this law are
present.

8
Id.
Bale yung A refer nalang to the previous argument being committed siya kasi
may threats si Bautista at nagbombahan na,
B kasi DDS ay isang terror organization so pag associated ka diyan at the very
least prima facie evidence of terrorism or at least conspiracy
C sabihin mo nalang due to the urgency of the situation na lives are at stake
we need to act quickly so at the moment eto yung available means

Sabihin mo na din na terrorism falls under “other offenses against national

security”. Kasi terrorism is a fairly new concept while RA 4200 was enacted in
1965 so di siya specifically enumerated sa batas pero may clause naman na
taga salo.

Section 8 of R.A. No. 9372 provides:

“SEC. 8. Formal Application for Judicial Authorization. - The written order of the
authorizing division of the Court of Appeals to track down, tap, listen to, intercept, and
record communications, messages, conversations, discussions, or spoken or written
words of any person suspected of the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to
commit terrorism shall only be granted by the authorizing division of the Court of
Appeals upon an ex parte written application of a police or of a law enforcement official
who has been duly authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council created in
Section 53 of this Act to file such ex parte application, and upon examination under oath
or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce to establish: (a) that
there is probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances
that the said crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism has been committed,
or is being committed, or is about to be committed; (b) that there is probable cause to
believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that evidence, which is
essential to the conviction of any charged or suspected person for, or to the solution or
prevention of, any such crimes, will be obtained; and, (c) that there is no other effective
means readily available for acquiring such evidence.”

(Ramil – basically the same as RA 4200 pero this one RA NO 9372 is specific to
terrorism. Kung baga 4200 is general all encompassing pero RA NO 9372
applies in the present case)
 B. JASON F. ROCK, AN INTELLIGENCE PERSONNEL OF THE UNITED STATES,
IS A PROPER APPLICANT FOR JUDICIAL AUTHORIZATION

Akin nalang toh papis and mamis

III. THE SEIZURE OF PROF. EDGARDO’S PERSONAL COMPUTERS, CELLPHONES AND

OTHER ELECTRONIC GADGETS WAS VALID.

A. THE PROSECUTION IS NOT UNAWARE THAT THE SEARCH WARRANT

ISSUED BY THE RTC JUDGE IS CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFECTIVE

Vhal, we are not unaware that the warrant is invalid based on: general
warrant, blah blah.. then legal basis sa rules of court and elements ng valid
search warrant.

B. THE DEFECTS IN THE SEARCH WARRANT IS NOT FATAL TO THE

ADMISSIBILITY OF THE SEIZED ITEMS AS EVIDENCE FOR THE
PROSECUTION
Shinar eto na yung kung bakit kahit walang warrant admissible as evidence
kaw na bahala lagay ko nalang din dito yung batas for you

“Section 3 (e). (RA NO. 10168 toh) Designated persons refers to:
(1) any person or entity designated and/or identified as a terrorist, one who finances
terrorism, or a terrorist organization or group under the applicable United Nations
Security Council Resolution or by another jurisdiction or supranational jurisdiction;

(2) any organization, association, or group of persons proscribed pursuant to Section 17

of the Human Security Act of 2007;

(3) any person, organization, association, or group of persons whose funds or

property, based on probable cause are subject to seizure and sequestration
under Section 39 of the Human Security Act of 2007.”

We now refer to Section 39 of R.A. No. 9372:

 “SEC. 39. Seizure and Sequestration. - The deposits and their outstanding balances,
placements, trust accounts, assets, and records in any bank or financial institution,
moneys, businesses, transportation and communication equipment, supplies and other
implements, and property of whatever kind and nature belonging: (1) to any person
suspected of or charged before a competent Regional Trial Court for the crime of
terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism; (2) to a judicially declared and
outlawed organization, association, or group of persons; or (3) to a member of such
organization, association, or group of persons shall be seized, sequestered, and frozen in
order to prevent their use, transfer, or conveyance for purposes that are inimical to the
safety and security of the people or injurious to the interest of the State.”

Eto shy focus ka sa number 3. Member of DDS, declared outlawed

organization is covered here