Article III Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights is the list of the most important rights of a citizen. The
purpose is to protect these rights against infringement. The first coded
bill of rights is that of England in 1689, although it already has its Magna
Carta as early as 1215. The United States, from which we borrowed
much of our Constitution, had their Bill of Rights only in 1776.
Section 1: (1st part) No person shall be deprived of life, liberty
or property without due process of law, (2 nd part) nor shall any
person be denied the equal protection of the laws.
There are two parts of Section 1. The parts are as important as
other. The first is termed as the due process clause of
Constitution. The second is the equal protection clause of
Constitution. The parts of Section 1 should be separated. They
identical but are not the same.

the
the
the
are

The Bill of Rights contains mandates against the State. In the

structure of Government regarding the inherent powers of government,
which if not present there would be no government at all that is how
important it is. Since the powers of the government are inherent by
itself, that is how powerful the government is. Because of the police
power, power of eminent domain and power of taxation, you could just
imagine that the government can just run.. against its citizens. The
government cant be stopped that is why the bill of rights was invented.
The entire list of rights in the bill of rights is a protection by the people
against the state. It is always against the state because the bill of rights
is a list of rights that protect the individual citizen against the State. (eg.
Warrant of arrest, against seizures, violation of communication)
Does the bill of rights only apply to Filipino citizens? No. It applies
even to foreigners for as long as they are inside the territory or
jurisdiction of the country. EXCEPTION: But there is one provision in the

bill of rights that applies only to Filipino citizens. Section 7 only applies
to Filipino citizens and is not applicable to foreigners.
The idea of government is brought about by two social values; Power
and Freedom. Power, on the part of the government that exercises it and
freedom exercised by the citizen. The governance therefore becomes
the delicate art of balancing the power of the government and the
freedom of the governed. It is the story of governmental power and
constitutional limits on each individual.
The bill of rights protects the right to life, right to liber and right to
property (Section 1). The bill of rights is the restriction of the great
powers of the government. It is a protection against abuse of power, by
the government and the freedom of the governed.
The totality of governmental power is contained in three great powers;
the police power, power of eminent domain and the power of taxation.
These powers are not granted by the constitution. They are inherent
powers of the government without which the government cant exist.
What can the constitution do to these powers? The Constitution
can only define and delimit these powers and allocate their exercise
among various government agencies.
Police power, among the inherent powers has been characterized as
the most essential, insistent and the least limitable of powers, extending
as it does to all the great public needs. Police power is that inherent and
plenary power in the State which enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful
to the comfort, safety and welfare of society. Police power rests upon
public necessity and upon the right of the State and the public to selfprotection. Police power has been used to justify public safety
measures such as building regulations, the regulation of the carrying of
deadly weapons, the requirement of rotational participation in patrol
duty, regulation of gasoline stations and movie theaters and the use of
city roads. Police power has been used to justify public health
measures, as in compulsory connection to sewerage facilities?

In the field of public morals, police power has been used as the basis
for judicial approval of legislation punishing vagrancy, prohibiting
gambling, regulating the operation of dance halls, hotels and motels.
But where a municipality refused to give any permit for night clubs
and any license for professional dancers, the Court declared the
ordinance unconstitutional as going beyond mere regulation into
prohibition of profession or calling which, properly regulated, can be
legitimate.
While gambling may be prohibited, when it is allowed, the courts will not
pass judgment on the choice of the legislature.
The morality of
gambling is not a justiciable issue. Gambling is not illegal per se.
While generally inimical to the interests of the people, there is nothing
in the Constitution categorically proscribing gambling.
What are the rights protected of the due process clause of
Section 1? No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property
without due process of law. Right to life, right to liberty and right to
property.
What is the principal yardstick against which the exercise of
police power can be measured? How may one measure the
exercise of police power? Police must be exercised within the limits
set by the Constitution. In the words of the leading case of US v.
Toribio, the legislative determination of what is a proper exercise of its
police power is not final or conclusive, but is subject to the supervision
of the courts. The principal yardsticks against which such exercise
must be measured are the due process clause and the equal protection
clause.
Case of U.S. v. Toribio is cited by Bernas, the reach of the due process
and the equal protection clauses touched all persons, be they citizens or
aliens, natural or corporate.
What is the extent of the protection of the right to life that is
protected by the Constitution? The Constitutional protection of the

right to life is not just the protection of the right to be alive or to be

secured of ones limb against physical harm. It goes beyond the right to
life up to a right to good life.
True or False. The right to liberty is protected by the
Constitution? It proves that merely freedom from bodily restraint but
also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any common
occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a
home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of
ones conscience. That is the liberty that is protected by the
Constitution; it is not just body restraint.
What is the extent of the right to property that is protected by
the Constitution? Protected property includes all kinds of property
found in the Civil Code. It has been deemed to include vested rights
such as perfected mining claim, or a perfected homestead or a final
judgment.
True or False. There is a hierarchy of rights protected by the
Constitution. Which of the three rights protected are most
important? Yes. There is a hierarchy. It would seem that the manner
Constitution has arranged this rights begins with the (1) right to life, (2)
right to liberty and last is the (3) right to property.
Case of Arroyo v. De Lima: When Arroyo was arranged to leave but
was not permitted. When it reached the Supreme Court, the justices
adverted to right to life as supreme of all the rights of citizens. The SC in
granting the temporary restraining order in favor of petitioner means to
say that Arroyo adverted to the right to life as the most important right
protected by the Constitution.
As held by the SC in Philippine Blooming Mills, how is the
primacy of human rights over property rights demonstrated?
Philippine Blooming Mills is in fact saying that there is primacy of human
rights over property rights. So how is this primacy demonstrated?
The primacy of human rights over property rights is recognized as

superiority of these freedoms over property rights is underscored by the

fact that a mere reasonable or rational relation between the means
employed by the law and its object of purpose that the law is neither
arbitrary nor discriminatory nor oppressive would suffice to validate a
law which restricts or impairs property rights.
Just a relation would suffice to validate a law however; a constitutional
or valid infringement of human rights requires a more stringent
criterion, namely existence of a grave and immediate danger of
substantive evil which the State has the right to prevent.
Two aspects of due process:
(1) Procedural due process- matter of procedure
(2) Substantive due process matter of substance; substance of the
law
Substantive requirement is a prohibition of arbitrary laws, because if all
that the due process clause required were proper procedure, then life,
liberty or property could be destroyed arbitrarily provided proper
formalities are observed.
As a procedural requirement, it relates chiefly to the mode of procedure
which government agencies must follow in the enforcement and
application of laws. It is a guarantee of procedural fairness. Its essence
was expressed by Daniel Webster as a law which hears before it
condemns.
In the early history of due process, due process was understood to
relate chiefly to the mode of procedure which government agencies
must follow. It was understood as guarantee of procedural fairness. Due
process, according to Webster, is more clearly intended the general law,
a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and
renders judgment only after trial.
There are different requirements of due process:

(1) Procedural due process depending on the circumstances, there

is a requirement for administrative due process, there is a
requirement for criminal due process, and there is also a
requirement for school discipline cases.
Why are there different sets of requirements of procedural
due process? What is due process of law depends on the
circumstances. It varies with the subject matter and the necessities
of the situation. That is why it is the requirement of due process that
created cases; administrative cases and student discipline cases are
different.
What are the requirements of procedural due process in
judicial proceedings?
Case of Banco Espaol Filipino v. Palanca;
(1) There must be a court or tribunal clothed with judicial power to
hear and determine the matter before it.
(2) Jurisdiction must be lawfully acquired over the person of the
defendant or over the property which is subject of the
proceedings
(3) The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard
(4) Judgment must be rendered upon lawful hearing
What are the requirements of procedural due process in
administrative proceedings/agencies?
Case of Ang Tibay v. Court of industrial Realations(CIR)
(1) The right to actual or constructive notice of the institution of
proceedings which may affect a respondents legal rights
(2) A real opportunity to be heard personally or with the assistance of
counsel, to present witness and evidence in ones favor, and to
defend ones rights

(3) A tribunal vested with competent jurisdiction and so constituted

as to afford a person charged administratively a reasonable
guarantee of honesty as well as impartiality, and;
(4) A finding by said tribunal which is supported by substantial
evidence submitted for consideration during the hearing or
contained the records or made known to the parties affected.
What are the requirements of procedural due process in
student discipline cases?
Case of Guzman v. National University
(1) The students must be informed in writing of the nature and cause
of any accusation against them
(2) They shall have the right to answer the charges against them,
with the assistance of counsel, if desired
(3) They shall be informed of the evidence against them
(4) They shall have the right to adduce evidence in their own behalf
(5) The evidence must be duly considered by the investigating
committee or official designated by the school authorities to hear
and decide the case.
Among these examples of requirement for procedural process, what is
considered the more important requirement of the procedural due
process whether it is judicial, administrative cases or student discipline
cases; whether in judicial or administrative proceedings, the heart of
due process is the need for notice and the opportunity to be
heard.
The due process clause must be understood to guarantee not just
forms of procedure but also the very essence of life, liberty and
property. It must be interpreted both as procedural and as a
substantive guarantee. Due process must be a guarantee against
exercise of arbitrary power even when the power is exercised
according to proper forms and procedure.

The requirement of Substantive due process is not a rigid concept.

The heart of substantive due process is the requirement of
reasonableness or absence of exercise of arbitrary power.
The case of U.S. v. Toribio(1910) : There was a statute regulating
the slaughter of large cattle. It was challenged as unlawful
deprivation of property since large cattle cannot be slaughtered. The
petitioner reached the SC saying that there is deprivation of property.
The SC sustained the statute since it is constitutional, therefore
legal. The State may interfere whenever the public interest demands.
To the SC at that time the public interest demands that the large
cattle must be preserved.
During the time of Marcos, an Executive Order by Marcos was issued
amending E.O. 626 (Prohibiting the Slaughter of Large Cattle/
Banning the slaughter of carabaos and buffaloes). The amendment
would prohibit the transportation of carabao/carabeef from one
province to another; and any carabeef that is found is confiscated
immediately. The case reached the SC and said that the said
amendment is unconstitutional, because it is deprivation of property
without due process of law. The SC said, outright confiscation is not
reasonably related to related or necessary to the purpose, it is
unduly oppressive (Ynot v. Intermidiate Court of Appeals). The
owner of the property is denied the opportunity to be heard and the
property is immediately confiscated and distributed.
Compare U.S. v. Toribio to Ynot v. Intermediate Court of
Appeals, where in fact both cases involve the same subject matter.
The Case of Rubi v Provincial Board of Mindoro(1919); There was
the law creating reservations for Mangyan tribes and prescribing
penalties for non Mangyan non-conformists was challenged as
deprivation of liberty without the due process of law. The SC held, the
law was justified by the demands of general welfare and public interest.
Remember this is 1919 case. Today, this case is illegal. It would be

termed as hamletting and it is against human rights.

1919, it is constitutional.

But before in

Case of People v. Fajardo; A building permit was denied to an owner

of a property. He wants to put up a house. It was denied on the ground
that the proposed construction would block the view from the highway
towards the municipal plaza.
Principle of presumed constitutionality of validity of statutes;
The Case of Ermita Malate Hotel and motel Operators, Inc. v.
City Mayor of Manila; involves a city ordinance designated in part to
curb the rampant use of hotels and motels as places of illicit
assignation.
The case of Taada v. Tuvera; Publication and clarity of laws as a
requirement of due process. This pertains to Article 2 of the Civil Code
on publication of laws which says: Laws shall take effect after fifteen
days following the completion of their publication in the official Gazette,
unless it is otherwise provided. The contention is on the phrase unless
it is otherwise provided. The Court said, it refers to the requirement of
fifteen days. The 15 days can be lengthened or shortened but not to the
point of allowing no publication at all. There must be publication,
although it is allowed that it may for a shorter period.
True or false: Requiring publication for effectivity of laws applies
only to those passed by Congress. False. It is also a rule for other
legislative bodies like the local government, as well as presidential
decrees.
What is void for vagueness rule? If it is too vague that it cannot be
understood by the one who is affected, it is vague. It is void for
vagueness.

Case of Estrada v. Sandiganbayan;

Case of People v Pietra (2001);
What is exactly meant by the equal protection of laws? The equal
protection of clause is a specific constitutional guarantee of the equality
of the person. The equality it guarantees is legal equality or the equality
of all persons before the law. The equality guaranteed however does not
deny the state the power to recognize an act upon factual differences
between the individuals and classes. It recognizes that inherent in the
right to legislate is the right to classify. (eg. Of classification allowed;
men and women).
Case of Tiu v Court of Appeals; about the the special economic zone
in Subic. Business establishments in Subic that is outside the fence-in
area as against those business establishments which were inside the
fencein area is a classification that is allowed. If rules are applied to one
class that is not applied to the other then there is no inequality. It is
equal under the law. The rule therefore in equal protection cases is to
determine whether the classification is valid. If the classification is valid
then there is no inequality. The SC ruled that it is constitutional.
What is meant by guarantee of equal protection? The guarantee of
equal protection simply means that no person or class of persons shall
be deprived of the same protection of the laws which is enjoyed by other
persons or other classes in the same place and in like circumstances.
(Tolentino v. Board of Accountancy)
The classification to be followed must be reasonable; (1) must rest on
substantial distinction; (2) must be germane to the purpose of the law;
(3) must not be limited to the existing conditions only; and (4) must
apply to all members of the same class.
Fair Elections Act provides that elective officials are not deemed resign
upon the filing of their candidacy. This is not the case for appointive
officials. It is not a violation of the equal protection clause. The

appointive and elective officials are governed by different rules. The

provisions in fair elections act that provides that officials are not deemed
resign upon filing their certificate of candidacy was held by the SC not
applicable to appointive official running for public office because they are
not of the same class.
Case of International
Quisimbing;

School

of

Alliance

of

Educators

v.

The constitution as a general rule places the civil rights of aliens in equal
footing with those of citizens. For political rights, however, they do not
enjoy the same protection.
Case of Li Seng Giap; law prohibiting aliens from acquiring certain
public lands was challenged as discriminatory.
Case of Ichong v. Hernandez; the Retail Nationalization Law
Case of King v. Hernaez on the Anti-Dummy Law
A law can offense against equal protection law not only when it classifies,
(classifies but there was a mistake in the classification), but also when it
fails to classify (there is no classification at all). The equal protection
clause is violated.
Case of Villegas v. Hiu Chiong; The Court invalidated a Manila
ordinance imposing a uniform license fee of 50 pesos on all aliens as a
precondition for accepting employment. There was no classification. So
there was a violation of the equal protection clause.
Case of Gumabon v. Director of Prisons; petitioners had been
sentenced to life imprisonment for the complex crime of rebellion with
murder.
Case of Himagan v. People; Ordinary accused (not accused
policemen) when they are accused in court, they are imposed suspension
of maximum of 90 days under Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act. But

under R.A. 6975, for policemen, it allows the suspension to continue

beyond 90 days. It was questioned for the violation of the equal
protection clause. SC said policemen carry weapons and badge of law
which can be used to harass or intimidate witnesses against them.
Does the equal protection clause provision mainly prohibits the
state from institutionalizing inequality or does it command the
state to take positive measures to eradicate inequality? Do our
laws ,esp. constitution, provide for remedies against inequality or
provisions removing inequities in our Constitution, so that there would be
no questions on the equal protection clause of the Constitution?
We have. We find doctrinal support in the constitution for more vigorous
state effort toward achieving a reasonable measure of equality.
(1)Philippine Constitution Preamble(proclaims equality)
(2)the command to promote social justice; Art II,Sec.10 in all phases of
national development;
(3)further instigated by Article 13, clear commands to the State to take
affirmative action in the direction of greater equality
(4) giving COMELEC broad powers in order to implement laws seeking to
equalize political opportunities.
(5)Command of constitution to Congress to prohibit political dynasties
(6)Article III, Section 11 express guarantee of free access to the courts
regardless of ability or inability to pay.
(7)Article XIV, commands the state to make quality education accessible
to all
Several remedies are already in place in the constitution that would
eradicate the inequality. So that if this would be implemented, inequality
is eradicated, then there would be no need for the equal protection
clause provision of the constitution.

Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons,

houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and

seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be

inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall
issue except upon probable cause to be determined personally
by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized.
Section 2 has two components.
1. The component is the mandate that the people has the right to be
secured in their persons, houses, papers and effects. From what? ----against unreasonable searches and seizures. Ang bawal ay
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any
purpose shall be inviolable.
Nag-originate ito sa England, nung mga panahon pa ng mga hari,
because there once a law in England that even if you are a king, you
cannot enter the house of the government because his abode is his
kingdom.
Pwede lang pumasok pagka may search warrant or warrant of
arrest. Kaya lang bago pumasok the search warrant or warrant of
arrest shall issued by probable cause to be determined personally
by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnesses he may produce. Yung probable
cause ng issuance of the warrant of arrest and search
warrant must be personally determined by the judge. Yung
determination of probable cause is the one that is personally
done by the judge hindi yung examination ng witnesses. The
examination of witnesses need not be determined by the judge.
Before there shall be issuance of search warrant or warrant of
arrest, probable cause should be first determined and it must be
personally done by the judge.
The purpose of the provision is to protect the privacy and sanctity of
the person, his house and other possessions against arbitrary intrusions
of the state and provides for the conditions over which arbitrary
intrusions may be made. The section is in fact saying that intrusions

may be made, but there must be a valid intrusion, it must be

reasonable--- there must be a probable cause.
Question: May a private person or entity may be held liable for illegal
search? Diba sinabi naten na ang Bill of Rights against the state, so a
private person can never violate the Bill of Rights(BOR). This then is only
when the police officers who enters a house, made illegal searches that
the Bill of Rights are violated. Kapag private person hindi pwede,
because the BOR is against the arbitrary intrusions of the state. ------ A
private person may be held liable against Article 2 of the Civil
Code, not under the BOR.
Question: Is the provision, Section 2 specifically, a prohibition against
searches and seizures? ------- NO. It is only a prohibition against
unreasonable searches and seizures. In other words, there must be a
probability that the search and seizure shall be reasonable because
Section 2 is a prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.
So if its reasonable, then t is not a violation of Sec. 2.
As a general rule, searches and seizures are unreasonable
unless authorize by a validly issued search warrant. It is
reasonable then if its validly issued, if its unreasonable then it is not
valid. If it is a valid search, then it is legal. What is a valid
search?------ It is a search where a search warrant or warrant of arrest
is issued. But again, even if there is no valid search warrant or warrant
of arrest, there are instances where a search may be deemed valid.
Exemption to the exemptions.
2. No search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon
probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after
examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Valmonte v. De Villa--- The question is post if at what point an
inspection, say in a checkpoint, the search with regard to Section 2, the

Court said that there is as yet no cause for the application of the
constitutional rule when what are involved are routine checks consisting
of "a brief question of one or two. For as long as the vehicle is neither
searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search and the
inspection of the vehicle is limited to a visual search. So sa checkpoint,
sabi ng pulis," boss para na yan at checkpoint", tapos "yung flashlight
pakibukas lang po at yung bintana."--- yung pagbukas ng bintana, okay
pa, pero pag sinabeng pati compartment ay bukas, HINDI na pwede yun.
Hindi na considered na visual search yun that is already searching.
Pagka nagflaflash light lang, okay pa yun pero pag naging malikot na,
hndi na pwede yun.
Bago kayo magmatigas o makipag-away man sa pulis, make sure na
walang kahina-hinala sa sasakyan mo. Because under another principle
or exemption, kapag kahina-hinala naman ang kilos ng vehicle that
would give the police officers reason to believe that a crime has been
committed, makakalusot yung pulis na yun.

Definition of Probable Cause:

Let's define then, what is a probable cause? Because no search
warrant or warrant of arrest may be issued except upon probable cause.
It has been defined, "such facts and circumstances antecedent to
the issuance of a warrant, that are in themselves sufficient to
induce a cautious man to rely upon them and act in pursuance
thereof."
What is the probable cause of the issuance of a
search warrant and warrant of arrest --- such facts and
circumstances which lead a reasonably prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested.
TRUE/FALSE---- The quantum of evidence needed to establish
probable cause is proof beyond reasonable doubt? ---- it is FALSE. The
kind of evidence needed to establish probable cause is PROBABILITY,
just probability. The prosecution did not present at this stage proof
beyond reasonable doubt, the standards of judgment are words of a
reasonably prudent man and the exact thing or calibrations of a judge of
a hugold right(?????)

The case of a Congressman Aniag, way back in 1991 or 1992, he

was stop from the gate of the Batasan, so tinignan yung laman ng
sasakyan, meron ngang baril, pero ang naging decision ng Supreme
Court dito, there was no reasonable ground to believe that Congressman
Aniag was violating a law. There was no prior intelligence report that he
was carrying a contraband. So sinabe ng SC that the police officers are
not free to frisk and examine the vehicle. There must be a reasonable
ground to belive, so balik tayo sa probable cause. There must be at least
probable cause. So nakalusot si Congressman Aniag.

Probable cause for a search warrant must point to a specific

offender. Probable cause for a search warrant must point to a specific
violation or criminal law. Probable cause for a warrant of arrest, like
that of a search warrant, need not point to a specific offender.

Essential Requisites of a valid Warrant

1. Must be issued upon probable cause
2. Probable cause must be personally determined by the judge
3. Such Judge must examine under oath or affirmation the complainant
and the witnesses he may produce
4. And the warrant must particularly describe the place, the search and
the person to be seized.

Stonehill v. Diokno ----- it is not provided that a search warrant

shall not be issued but upon probable cause in connection to one
specific offense, and that no search warrant shall be issued for more
than one specific offense. Isang search warrant, isang specific offense.
In this case, shotgun yung ginawa. There were so many provision of
laws that had been violated in one search warrant, and the Supreme

Webb v. De Leon ---- probable cause for warrant of arrest must

point to a specific offender.

Court invalidated the search warrant. There must be only one search
warrant for one specific offense.

existence of probable cause maybe through the use of an affidavits,

that is presented by the witnesses of the complainant.

The 1973 Constitution provides that the probable cause may be

determined by the judge or such other persons as may be authorize
by the law. Only the judge may determine probable cause for the
purpose of issuing a warrant. In the 1935 constitution, probable
cause is determined only by the judge, and no other. Determination
of probable cause has been expanded during the 1973, for such
maybe determined by the judge or such other persons as may be
authorize by the law. Binalik lang ng 1987 Constitution, that now
probable cause may be determined only by the judge.

In Lim Sr. V. Felix, the Court reiterated the ruling in Soliven v.

Makasiar, that the Judge does not have to personally examine the
complainant and his witnesses. The Prosecutor can perform the same as
a commissioner in the taking of evidence.

When an information is filed, there must be a finding of probable cause

by the fiscal, yung finding of probable cause by the prosecution during
the preliminary investigation is different from the finding of probable
cause for the issuance of issuing a warrant of arrest or a search warrant,
because the finding of a probable cause in filing a case with a fiscal is
an administrative proceeding, hindi pa yan judicial. Yung existence of
probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest or search warrent
is already the judicial proceeding.
Question: May the Judge personally examine the complainant and
the witnesses? --- In Soliven v. Makasiar case, the Court said, in satisfying himself
from the existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of
arrest, the judge is not required to personally examine the
the complainant and the witnesses. What the Constitution
underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the judge
to satisfy himself of the existence of a probable cause-----what is
required is the personal determination of probable cause not
personal examination. There was a question kasi that the
witnesses are not examined by Judge Makasiar, that is not
necessary. What is required is that the judge shall determine the

Then what is meant of "personally" in the provision in

Section 2?---- The word defines the determination of probable cause,
not examination of witnesses.
The later part of Section 2 provides that there must be
particularity in the description ----What is its purpose? ---- It is to
limit the things to be seized to those and particularly those only
described in the search warrant. That is why it must be described.

Is the rule that searched and seizures must be supported by a valid

warrant? ----- Does the provision prohibits all kinds of warantless search
and seizures? The rule that is seizures and searches must be
supported with a warrant is not an absolute rule. What the
provision prohibits is unreasonable searhes and seizures.
Searches and seizures not supported by warrant necessarily
unreasonable.

Warrantless Searches and Seizures may be allowed when:

1. The search is incident to an arrest, and by virtue of the arrest
contraband the scene in the person being arrested, so this is now
search incident to an
arrest --- it is no longer necessary for the
police officers to go to the court
and apply for a search warrant.
2. Such of moving vehicle. Kasi kapag pupunta ka pa sa husgado at
magaapply ng warrant, nakaalis na yung vehicle.

3. Seizure of evidence in plain view. Kitang kita na. Eg. --- nasa lamesa
na, kitang kita na ng pulis, so hindi na kailangan pumunta sa korte.
4. Customs Searches ----- It is in accordance with the Customs Law.
5. Where there is a waiver of the right againtsillegal searches and
seizures.

objects only after poking around, the discovery would not be considered
as inadvertent (People v. Musa).

In Moreno v. Ago Chi, "An officer making an arrest may take from the
person arrested any money or property found upon his person which
was used in the commission of the crime or was the fruit of the crime.

Both search warrants and warrants of arrest must satisfy the same
requirements as to the probable cause and the manner of its
determination. The 1987 Constitutional provision, specifically imposes
the same requirements for search warrant and warrant of arrest.

Question: May such incidental arrest be made in a place other than the
offender was arrested? This is the case when the accused was arrested
while riding in a jeepney and then the search was made inside his house
----- hindi pwede ito. The search must be done in the place where the
arrest was made.
NOTE: READ about ANIAG v. COMMISSION on ELECTIONS

Requirements for a Warrantless Search and Seizure of

evidence in Plain View:
1. There must be a valid prior intrusion into a place - there is legal basis
for the policeman to be inside a certain house - valid intrusion. Either
meron syang warrant of arrest or another object or something like that.
Nung nasa luob na sya, the evidence was inadvertently discovered by
the police, who had the right to remain inside the house. Inadvertent
dapat, hindi yung naghahanap pa sya. Pwede ding kunwari pumunta sya
ng kusina tapos nakakita ng kung anong illegal, hindi naman pala
inadvertent un kase matagal na niyang tinitignan.
2. The illegality of evidence must be immediately apparent - halimbawa,
ang baril -- illegality is apparent, maliwanag -- illegality is apparent.
3. Notice without order to search- It is notice without further search.
In People v. Tabar, where marijuana sticks fall before the eyes of a
police officer from an object a person is carrying, seizure of the sticks
would not require a warrant. But to come with the exception that the
discovery must be inadvertent, if an officers encounters prohibited

WAIVER. Waiver must be precise, hindi lang kunwari waiver lang. Like
the "stop and frisk" rule.

A Jondo(or Gonjo???) warrant of arrest satisfying the requirement of

particularity of description, only if it contains a description personae
such as the officer is able to identify the accused. Jondo (or Gonjo - ???)
- requirement of a particularity with a description. Tapias ang ilong,
Jonjo (tapias ang ilong). So merong description, that would describe this
person. Na sya nga yung Jondo, hindi basta Jondo, tapos biglang wala
na. There must be something to describe him. Kapag iisa lang yung
Jondo, eh kung 50 yung Jondo, it does not satisfy already particularity of
of description.
NOTE: Yung kanina, searches without warrant. Ngayon naman, ay arrest
without warrant. This is now provided under Section 13, of Section 113
Rules of Court
1) when in his presence the person to be arrested has committed,
has actually or
is about to commit an offense. Yung situation na
ganito, even a private person
may conduct or do the arrest. ------ Eto
yung Infragrante Delicto in the act of the commission of the
crime,
2. When an offense has been deemed committed and he has
peronal konwledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has
committed a crime.
3. When the person to be arrested was a prisoner who has escapae

from penal
establishment.
Note that one does not need to have a warrant of arrest.
The arrest maybe made immediately.

acquisition by the court of jurisdiction over the person of the accused

must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise the objection is
deemed waived.

Question: May a warrantless arrest be effected 3 months after the

commission of the crime? --- This cannot be done. Eto yung minsan na
sinasabe ng mga pulis na "hot pursuit". This is sometimes abused.
Kapag hindi not "hot " yung criminal, then such is not in "hot pursuit".

Question: Is an application for bail is considered a waiver of the right of

an accused to question the legality of his arrest? ---- under Section 26 of
Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, the application for
bail or the admission to bail by an accused is not considered a waiver of
his right to assail the warrant issued for his arrest, or the legalities or
irregularities thereof.

ENTRAPMENT. Is it legal?-- this depends. Entrapment may or may not

be legal depending upon the circumstances of the case. If the criminal
intent comes from the person of the accused, originally, then there is no
entrapment and the offender must be convicted. Example is, si A
sinabihan niya si B, "bumili ka ng marijuana sa tindahan sa kanto
pagkatapos bibilhin ko ng mas mahal." Walang kabog-abog yung isa.
Wala namang criminal intent sakanya na kumuha ng marijuana at
magbenta ng marijuana, sinabihan lamang sya. So the criminal intent
originate from the accused-- entrapping officer.
If there is Entrapment, the the accused cannot be convicted. So the
key here is, where the criminal intent originated. If it originated
from the person of the accused, then he must be convicted. If not, if
he had been only under an entrapment, then he cannot be
convicted.
In People v. Doria. The type of entrapment the law forbids is the
inducing of the other to violate the law, the "seduction" of an otherwise
innocent person into a criminal career. Where the criminal intent
originates in the mind of the entrapping person and accused is lured
into the commission of the offense charged in order to prosecute him,
there is entrapment and no conviction may be had.
In People v. Dela Cruz. When to challenge the validity of the arrest
any objection involving a warrant of arrest of procedure in the

Section
3.
(1)
The
privacy
of
communication
and
correspondence shall e inviolable except upon lawful order of
the court, or when public safety or order requires otherwise as
prescribed by law.
(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding
section shall be inadmissible for any of purpose in any
proceeding.
In Section 3 of the Bill of Rights, is privacy of communication and
correspondence
be
absolutely
inviolable?
The
invasion
of
communication and correspondence is one kind of a search. What type
of communication and correspondence is then covered by the
provision?--- The provision covers letters and messages. It also covers
wire taps and other methods of electronic tracking.
RA 10175. Cyber Crime Prevention Act, Section 12:
" No enforcement of authority shall be authorized to collect or
record by technical or electronic means tracking data in real file
associated in to the specific communication transmitted by means of
a computer system.
Question: Does Section 3 of the Bill of Rights intrusion to the privacy of
communication and correspondence? What are the conditions for such
allowable intrusion. --- Intrusion is allowed upon lawful orders of the

court or when public safety or order requires it as prescribed b law.

There must be a law that prescribes the exception.
Question: When intrusion is sought through an order from the court,
lets say we sent before the court an intrusion, upon what grounds may
the court allow the intrusion? ---- The court may allow intrusion based on
the requirements of probable cause. Section 3, is similar to provision on
prescribing illegal search and seizure. That is why you need probable
cause, kase dun sa seizures at search, kelangan mo ng probable cause.
Wire taps and prohibitions on wire taps is just like a searches and
seizures, they are the same. So the requirement for it to be done, that
there be intrusion, should be the same with Section 2, that there be a
probable cause. Intrusion on communication and correspondence
is one kind of search.
What is the meaning of the exclusionary rule under paragraph 2
of Sec. 3 --- The exclusionary rule bars admission of illegally obtained
evidence for any purpose and in any proceeding. The inadmissibility of
evidence does not mean that it must be returned where it came from. If
an evidence is declared as inadmissible, hindi ibig sabihin neto ay isosoli
mo, it is a contra band by itself and by its nature. If it is a contra band
by itself or by its nature, then it must be confiscated.
In People v. Andre Marti. This is a case where a there is no
governmental
interference.
The
constitutional
right
against
unreasonable search and seizure cannot be invoked against the state.
There is no reasonable search and seizure that my be invoked against
private persons. Its is always against the government.
May evidence unlawfully obtained by private individuals come
under the exclusionary rule? -- in the second paragraph of section 3,
an evidence that is obtained unlawfully must be excluded under the
exclusionary rule. There is a question now, what if the people involved
are not government men, thus they are private individuals, may such
evidence then be subjected to exclusionary rule? ---- NO. It can't be

excluded. Go back to the principal that the Bill of Rights is applicable

only against the government or agency of the government.