Bill of Rights (Section 1&2)

Bill of Rights
-Same as the study of the Constitution, how Bill of Rights fits into the jurisprudence to our laws.
- It’s a mechanism by which the rights of the people are protected. It’s very much like the Constitution. The Constitution is intended because of
the enormous powers of the government. Principal Powers of the government- police power, power of eminent domain, power of taxations.
- In the same vain that the Bill of Rights is there, very much like of the Constitution. In the Constitution, it is taken in a holistic point of view
such that the Constitution enumerates, creates the fundamental structure of the gov’t. In the Bill of Rights, it is likewise a protection, very much
like of the Constitution because of the enormity of the powers of the gov’t.

*THE PROTECTION IS GIVEN TO THE ACCUSED BUT NONE FOR THE VICTIM
- Why there are so many rights of the accused? It is right in the bill of rights Sec.12,14,17.
- No rights of the victim enumerated in the Constitution. All are rights of the accused. Right to counsel, right to everything..
**In CRIMINAL CASES, we say that the victims are the people themselves. The one that is hurt by commission of the crime are the people
themselves--- “PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. Juan.”

-It come with that would be the entire machinery of the court, the police, fiscal, justice system, the prosecutors, the everything that the
government can pour in to prosecute. That is why you also have to protect the accused. So the Bill of Rights was invented to have a
BALANCING ACT (rights enumerated therein), to balance enormous powers of Government and the Rights to govern, very much like of the
COnstitution.

Bill of Rights (in simple terms)

- It is a list bill, an enumeration of the most important rights of the citizens.
- The purpose is to protect these rights from infringement; therefore, these rights are existing. The bill of Rights was invented to protect
these rights from being infringe upon. Very much like the right against unreasonable search and seizure.
“These rights must be protected because it is a Natural Right” (according to CJ Puno) case of RP v. Sandiganbayan104768, July 21,2003.(1986)
- case arising from SEARCH and SEIZURE during the interregnum- after the EDSA revolution and before the proclamation of the Freedom
Constitution (Feb 26-March 24).
Search and Seizure was conducted in the house of Juan Demaano after the Revolution. Properties seized by the authorities and there
were contra ban. There was an unlawful search because the manner of the issuance of the search warrant was not in accordance with the rules
and law. Demaano wanted to exclude, under the exclusionary rule in the BR, the evidence against him that were taken from his house. “Sec.2
things ceased, properties ceased, evidence ceased in violation of the right to unreasonable search and seizure can be excluded and cannot
be used because it was unlawfully obtained----there is an EXCLUSIONARY RULE. (pres.Cory did not recognized the 1973 Constitution
therefore, there is no 1973 in effect from the time of the revolution) There is no Constitution to speak of, and there was no Bill of Rights. More
so, the rights of unreasonable search and seizures and the concocbetant right of exclusion.(MAJORITY DECISION: THERE IS NO Constitution.
Demaano cannot claim that she had the right against unreasonable search and seizures and the right to ask for the exclusion of the evidence
obtained in the allegedly illegal search.)
-*CJ Puno: DISAGREED that there is no right against unreasonable search and seizures; that there is no right to exclusion. “even
there is no BOR and Consti., there was a right against unreasonable search and seizures and exclusions for what is unlawfully taken is a king
the right to life, liberty and property, as a NATURAL RIGHT of a human being.----there are other rights in the bill of rights, that even if there is
no BOR, it attaches to a citizen because it is his natural right.

**First call of BOR starts in England in 1969, although it has its MAGNA CARTA in 1215. U.S. has its BOR only in 1776.

Sec. 1: NO PERSONS SHALL BE DPRIVED TO LIFE, LIBERTY, OR PROPERTY WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, NOR
SHALL ANY PERSON BE DENIED THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. (what comes to mind is principal powers of the state:
police power, eminent domain, power of taxation)
-there is already a right to life, liberty or property. Sec.1 is merely protecting these rights.
-the law protects everybody even there is no Bill of Rights.

**everything that is defined in the Bill of Rights is a mandate against the state.
-because it is an invention to protect the citizen against the state.

**Bill of Rights applies NOT only to the Filipino citizens.

-there is ONLY ONE section in the BOR that is applicable only to a Filipino Citizens. (Sec. 7) dedicated only to Filipinos. “RIGHT TO
EXAMINNE PUBLIC RECORDS”
-all others are applicable to both citizen and aliens alike.

**Initial study of the CONSTITUITON -Idea government is brought about by 2 social values- power and freedom.
-GOVERNANCE therefore is a dedicate act of balancing the power, the government and freedom of the govern. That’s when Bill of Rights
comes in. Naguumpugan ung dalawa at para magkaintindihan ung dalawa, papasok ung bill of rights.

**Bill of Rights is a restriction on the great powers of the gov’t.

-it is a protection against the abuse of power.
-always directed against the state.
*totality of the governmental powers-contain 3 great powers: police power, eminent domain, power of taxation.
**Police power
-most essential in system and the least limitable of all the powers
-Police power is the inherent and the deniably power of the state which enables it to prohibit all that is hurtful to the comfort, safety and welfare
of society- always referred to GENERAL WELFARE CLAUSE. Case of Ermita Hotel and hotel operators v. City of Manila
-Police power rests upon public necessity and upon the right of the state and of the public to self-protection.
-it exercise the government through the legislative department and may also be delegated to the local governments. Case of Fernando and her capacity as
City mayor of Marikina v. St. Scholastica 161107, March 12, 2013-------discusses the delegation police power to LGU through LGcode.
The state through the legislature has delegated the exercise of police power to LGU as agencies of the state. The said delegation is
embodied in Sec.16 of LGCode known as the General Welfare Clause.
-Police power has been used to justify public safety measure as building regulations, regulating regulation on the carrying deadly weapons,
gasoline stations, public health measures as it compulsory connection to the sunudsunurin system and regulation of capital imports.
-FIELD OF PUBLLIC MORALS: police power has been used as basis for judicial approval of legislation; policy vagrancy; prohibiting
gambling; regulating the operation of dance halls, motels and hotels. Policy refuse to give a permit to night clubs and any license of professional
dancers, the court declared ordinance unconstitutional as going beyond mere regulation into prohibition of a profession or calling which
property regulated can be legitimate. DelaCruz v. Judge Paras
-Gambling may be prohibited; the court will not pass judgement on the choice of congress. Magtahas v. Brice------conflict of statute on allowing
PAGCOR to operate in Cag.de Oro City. SC said that the NATIONAL LEGISLATION must pevail!
-police power has been used to justify measures from general welfare such as laws regulating the slaughter of carabaos, regulating nuisances, lay
down rules for deportation of aliens.
-police powers have everything to do with PUBLIC ORDER, putting order everything for the welfare of the public.
-it has always been justified as being for the welfare of the public/citizen.

1
**rights protecting the due process clause of the Constitution (Sec.1) and the equal protection clause
**exercise of police power is subject to the judicial inquiry in so far as it affects life, liberty or property of any person.
**the principle yardstick of the exercise of police power may be measured within the limits set by the constitution through DUE
PROCESS CLAUSE and the EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE so that it may not be considered as abusive exercise. Case of Profess v.
Turibio-----the legislative determination of what is proper exercise of police power is not final or conclusive but is subject to this provision of the
court.
***POLICE POWER IS A TOOL OF A STATE TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS FOR THEIR GENERAL WELFARE BUT IT MUST BE
REGULATED, OTHERWISE the state may not know because what it is doing is for the general welfare of the public but it is no longer saw,
therefore it must be regulated and measured through the principal yardstick to measure.

**due process clause and equal protection clauses touches all persons (citizens/aliens, natural/corporate) with the exemption of SEC.7, in
so far as aliens are concern.
**extent to life protection is not just just the protection to be alive or the security of one’s limb against physical harm. The right to life
includes also the right to a good life.
**right to liberty that is protected by the due process clause includes freedom by bodily restraint and the right of the individual one to
hold tract to engage in any call/occupations of life to apply useful knowledge to marry, establish and hold, and bring up children and
worship God according to the dictate of one’s conscience. It is NOT merely a freedom of out of jail.
**extent of the right of the property that is protected by the Constitution includes all kinds of property found in the Bill of Rights. It has
been deemed to include vested rights such as a perfected mining place or a perfected homestead or even a final jugement.
**the hierarchy of rights protected by the Constitution are: property (inferior), life and liberty ---1971 Constitutional Convention. Case of
Arroyo v. De Lima
characterized the importance of the right to life as
Case of Philippine Brewing mills employees organization v. Philippine Brewing mills company, Inc. 50 SCRA 189, 1973-----
against to property. By means of how easily/difficult the right to life/property may be tackled by the state. Human Right is recognized the
superiority freedom over property is under support of the fact of the rational relation between the means employed by the law and its object on
purpose that the law is neither arbitrary, discriminatory or oppressive would suffice the law which restricts or impairs property rights. A law that
impairs property rights may be valid only if it is proven that it is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory nor oppressive.
**A constitutional or valid infringement of human rights requires a more infringement criteria: the existence of a grave and immediate
danger of a substantive evil which the state has the right to protect. Test to allow infringement to the right to human rights for human life.
**2 aspects of due process: procedural and substantive
SUBSTANTIVE REQUIREMENT- it is a prohibition of arbitrary laws because the life, liberty or property could be destroyed
arbitrarily provided proper formalities are observed.
PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT- it relates chiefly the demote procedure these government agencies must follow in the enforcement
and application of laws. Its essence, it is a guarantee of procedural fairness (expressed by Daniel Webster as a law will swirls before it
condemns).
-Early history of the due process clause, it relates chiefly the promoting procedure which gov’t agencies must vow. It was understood as
guarantee of procedural fairness and is still so understood.
-Daniel Webster (procedural aspect of due process of law) argued before the SC.

**REASONS of different requirements of due process of law (3 INSTANCES)---------- because due process of law depends on
circumstances. The requirements vary in the subject matter and the necessities of the situation. Surely, an administrative case has a situation
different from that of the judicial case. So the requirements of procedural due process in an administrative case is different from a judicial
case.
1. there are requirements of procedural due process in JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS.
2. there are requirements of procedural due process in ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS.
3. there are requirements of procedural due process in STUDENT DISCIPLINE CASES.

**page115:the requirements of procedural due process in JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS case of Banko espanyol, Filipino v.balangka 1980 case.
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 the subject of the proceedings;
3. The defendant must be given an opportunity to be heard;
4. Judgement must be rendered upon lawful hearing.
**page115-116:requirements of procedural due process of law in ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS case of Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relation.
1. The right to a hearing, which includes the right to present one’s case and submit evidence in support thereof;
2. The tribunal must consider the evidence presented;
3. The decision must have something to support itself;
4. The evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence means such reasonable evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion;
5. The decision must be based on the evidence presented at the hearing, or at least contained in the record and disclosed to the parties affected;
6. The tribunal or body or any of its judges must act on its own independent consideration of the law and facts of the controversy, and not simply accept the views of a subordinate;
7. The board or body should, in all controversial questions, reder its decision in such manner that the parties to the proceeding can know the various issues involved, and the reason
for the decision rendered..
**page118:Procedural due process requirements in STUDENT DISCIPLINE CASES case of Guzman v. NU; case of Magtibay v. Santiago Q. Garcia (UP case)
1. The student 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.
-student commits a serious breach of discipline or faith to detain the requirements of the school, students forfeits his right and the courts
are not at liberty to reverse the discretion of the university authority in this matter.
-due process in disciplinary cases involving students does not entail proceedings and hearings similar to those prescribed for actions and
proceedings in courts of justice.
-a teacher in a school administrative proceeding has a right to be assisted by counsel

**MOST IMPORTANT/ THE HEART OF THE PROCEDURAL PROCESS (out of the 3 instances)
-The need for notice and the opportunity to be heard----- complied with the substantial req’t of due process.
-the need to comply due process in the strict way. But all the req’ts, NOTICE and HEARING is needed. Hindi pwedeng tanggalin, that is
the heart of the due process.

**due process clause must be understood to guarantee not just FORMS of procedures but also the very essence of life, liberty or
property. It must be interpreted as procedural and as substantive guarantee.
**due process must be a guarantee against the exercise of arbitrary power even the power is exercise according to proper procedure. So
even the matter is exercised strictly in accordance with the procedure, if it is an ARBITRARY SUBJECT MATTER, then it is still a
violating of due process. Therefore, to comply the due process, you comply both procedural and substantive due process.
**requirement of substantive due process is not a rigid consent. The heart of the substantive due process is the requirement of
reasonableness or absence of exercise of arbitrary power US v. Turibio
**Statute of prohibiting the slaughtering of carabao. “UNLAWFUL DEPRAVATION OF PROPERTY”---- Subject to certain limitations.
Dahil kaakibat ng magsasaka.
Marcos-issued E.O. that prohibits slaughtering of carabao. Also, an amendment of prohibiting transportation of carabao from one province to
another. Any carabao of meat shall be confiscated. SC said that the amendment is not valid, because it is oppressive and is tantamount to
oughtright confiscation without due process of law. case of Inot v. Iyak-------intermediate peril

2
**case of Rubi v. Provincial Board of Mindoro ---- law creating reservations for Mangyan Tribes and prescribing penalties for Mangyan non-conformists
was challenged as a deprivation of liberty without due process of law.
**Samples of violations of substantive due process..... ARBITRARY AND OPPRESSIVE LAWS therefore declared unconstitutional.
1. Case of Villa Vicencio v. Lungban---run up the prostitutes in manila.
2. Case of People v. Fajardo--- building permit is denied. OBSTRUCT the view. SC says oppressive
**PRINCIPLE PRESUMED FOR CONSTITUTIONALITY AND VALIDITY OF STATUTES Case of Ermita Malate Hotel and Motel Operators, Inc. v.
City Mayor of Manila-------involves city ordinance designed in part to curb the rampant use of hotels and motels as places of illicit assignation.
-There being no factual foundation presented regarding the presumption of constitutionality of the ordinance. The presumption of validity was
allowed. Ordinance was declared valid.----essence of the case: If there is no evidence to rebut the constitutionality of an ordinance, it is presumed
to have been issued lawfully in accordance with the correct procedure. It is substantive and not oppressive, if there is no evidence to show.
**rule on publication of laws as a requirement of due process Case of Tanada v. Tuvera-----meaning to be given to the Civil Code’s requirement of
publication. “Laws shall take effect after fifteen days following the completion of their publication in the Official Gazette, unless it is otherwise
provided”. SC said that the phrase “unless otherwise provided” refers to the numbers of days not to the fact of publication.
**rule requirement in publication shall also be appraised to laws passed by congress and also a rule of publication is a requirement of an
administrative laws and other laws.
**Vagueness rule is void.
-A law that is utterly vague is defective because it fails to give notice of what it commands. Case of People v. Nazario; Case of Estrada v. Sandiganbayan 2001;
Case of People v. De la Piedra
-Vague rule is a repugnant to the Constitution in two sapects:
1. It violates due process for failure to accord persons, especially the parties targeted by it, fair notice of the conduct to avoid;
2. It leaves law enforcers unbridled discretion in carrying out its provisions and becomes an arbitrary flexing of the Government muscle.
-Vague cannot be clarified by either a saving clause or by construction.

**equal protection clause (Sec.1, 2nd paragraph)

-guarantees legal equality of all persons before the law. It cannot be absolute equality because man and woman can never be equal.
-equality guarantee does not deny the statute the power to recognize an act upon factual differences between individual and classes. It
recognize that inherent to the right to legislate is the right to classify. The problem, thus, in equal protection cases is one of determining
the classification made by law. Hindi pwedeng magpasa ang congress ng law that shall be enforced to both men and women in general. Dahil
hindi talaga pwede dahil there is no equality. Pero pwedeng sabihin na etong batas na ito, pwede lang sa mga babae, pwede lang sa mga lalaki..
that would be still equality before the law because all women will be considered equal under the law. Therefore, if the state provided the
statute, makes a valid classification, then it is a valid statute.

**guarantee of equal protection

- Case of Tolentino v. Board of Accountancy, means 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 of the same place and in like circumstances. Equally applied to a class, there is equality before the law..
-Case of People v. Cayat, it is an establishment principle of constitutional law that the guarantee of the equal protection of the laws is not
violated by legislation based on reasonable classification.

**requirements of REASONABLE CLASSIFICATION (to be valid)

1. Must rest on substantial distinctions;
2. Must be germane to the purpose of the law;
3. Must not be limited to existing conditions only;
4. Must apply equally to all members of the same class.

**Fair relations act

- it provides that elective officials are not deemed preside upon the filing of their certificates of their candidacy. This is not the cases of
appointing officials. This NOT a violation of the equal protection clause Case of Farinas v. Executive Secretary because the elective official are a
class of their own and the appointing officials is another class. This cannot be applied equally to both the elective and the appointee.
-chui v.CA RA7227 (batas sa subic), it was challenged as violative of equal protection because it granted tax and duty incentives only to businesses
and residents within the “secured area” of the Subic Special Economic Zonne. This grants incentives is not given to businesses is not given to
outside of the fence. SC said that they justified the classification.
-Case of International School Alliance of Educators (with foreign and local hires) v. Quisumbing (sec.of immigration), claim for higher salary for foreign hires than Filipinos
of equal rank was declared constitutional. SC argued that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” required that persons who work with
substantially equal qualifications, skills, effort and responsibility, under similar conditions, should be paid similar salaries.

**alienage as basis of classification

- Case of Smith Bell and Co v Natividad, 1990 case----- a leading case decided before the Commonwealth, was the constitutionality of the exclusion of non-
Filipinos and non-Americans from coastwise trade.
- Case of Li Seng Giap and Co. V. Director of Lands ---a law prohibiting aliens from acquiring public lands was challenged and discriminatory. Not declared
unconstitutional. The Constitution, as a general rule, places the civil rights of aliens on an equal footing with those citizens . Their political
rights however, do not enjoy the same protection.
- Case of Ihchong v. Hernandez-------National Retail Trade Nationalization Law (RA 1180), which prohibits aliens from engaging from formidable
Chinese business community. SC concluded: the objectionable characteristics of the exercise of the retail trade by aliens, which are actual and
real, furnish sufficient grounds for legislative classification of retail traders into nationals and aliens. In addition: the law in question deemed
absolutely necessary to bring about the desired legislative objective---to free the national economy from alien control and dominance.
- Case of Villegas v. Hiu Chiong---a law can offend against equal protection not only when it classifies unlawful classification but also when it fails to
classify. The court invalidated a manila ordinance imposing uniform fee of fifty pesos to all aliens as precondition for accepting employment. The
uniform fee was found unlawful because it fails to consider valid substantial differences in situation among individual aliens who are required to
pay it. Nilahat na niya so ung classification hindi nagclassify. Bawal parin sa equal protection.
- Case of humakun v. Director of Prisons; Case of People v. Hernandez
- Case of imagon v. People, 1994 case---- the court allowing different treatment for accused police officers. The National Police Law allows suspension to
continue beyond ninety days. Kung hindi pulis, and suspension under the Anti Graft and Corrupt Practices Act ay ninety days lang.

**DOCTRINAL SUPPORT(provisions in saligang batas- gives equality without being merely reactional)
Reactionary, kelangan pang ifile sa batas o kongreso at pag nakitang inequality duon lang papsok ung constitution.
-Equal protection clause (either Proactive or reactionary) prohibits the state inequality and sets positive measures to eradicate inequalities on its
own.

**Provisions in the Constitution that is self promoting Equality:

1. Preamble- proclaims “equality” as an ideal, precisely crushing inequalities in society.
2. Command to Promote Social Justice (Art.II, sec.10), in “all phases of national development,” further explicated in (Art. XIII), are
clear commands to the State to take affirmative action in the direction of greater equality.
3. The commission of elections is given broad powers in order to enable it to implement laws seeking to equalize political opportunities
4. The command of Congress to prohibit political dynasties has equalization for its goal.
------------------PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION THAT TENDS TO EQUALIZE NOT MERELY REACTIONARY
5. Bill of Rights, Sec.11, there is an express guarantee of free access to the courts regardless of the ability or inability to pay.
6. Art.XIV, the State is commanded to make equality education accessible to all.

3
Sec.2: THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO BE SECURE IN THEIR PERSONS, HOUSES, PEPERS, AND EFFECTS AGINST
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.//

**sec.2 is a circumscription of the power of the state over a person’s home and possessions, in protecting the privacy and sanctity of the
person and the right to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures. It also guarantee against unlawful arrest and other
forms of restraint on the physical liberty of the person.

**an act is UNREASONABLE if it is not covered by a valid search warrant and it does not come under the exception of the warrantless search.
-it place down the requirement for a reasonable search.
1. There must be a warrant issued by the court. Search warrant or warrant of arrest.
-search is unreasonable if there is no valid warrant.
Exceptions:
1. Search incidental to arrest
2. Search of moving vehicles
3. Evidence in plain view
4. Custom inspections
5. Waiver
6. Exigent circumstance
7. Stop and frisk rule
8.

1. Evidence in plain view. Probable cause (primary requirement for the issuance of a warrant)
2. Falling in the plain view of an officer who has the right to be in the position to have that vie are subject to seizure and may introduced
in evidence.

**the 1st portion is a MANDATE of the right of the people. Hindi kasama ditto ang search na hindi unreasonable, hindi bawal.
**the 2nd probable cause is determined by the judge after examination under oath of the complainant and the witnesses even includes.

**TWIN PURPOSES/ MANDATE of sec.2:

1. To protect privacy and sanctity of persons and his house and other possessions against the arbitrary inclusion of the state
2. To provide of the provisions under which a valid inclusion may obtain.

**ILLEGAL SEARCH OF A PRIVATE PERSON has NO liability under the Bill of Rights. Because the Bill of Rights is a mandate against
the state. It can only be committed by the state or the police.
-liable under Article 32 of the Civil Code. Civil liability kasi hindi naman siya pulis. Case of Silahis Int. V. Soluca, 2006 case.

**the provision is NOT a prohibition against all searches and seizures but only UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES.
-general rule, searches and seizures are unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued search warrant.

**INSPECTION IN A CHECKPOINT (search in sec.2)

-Pulis.
-search in violation in, or within the ambit or control of sec.2, Case of Belmonte v. Vilian; Case of People v. Escano, 2000 case.
-court said, there is yet no cost for the application of the constitutional rule, meaning sec.2. when both party involved are route in checks
consisting of a brief question—“pwede po bang pakibukas”. As long as the vehicle is neither search nor its occupants subjected to bodily
search and the inspection of the vehicle is limited only to visual search. Said routing search cannot be regarded as violating of the individual
right against unreasonable search and seizures.
--waived right against unreasonable search.. it does not violate sec.2.
--checkpoint is only subject to visual search.
**AS LONG AS THE INSPECTION IS LIMITED TO VISUAL SEARCH, THERE IS NO VIOLATION.

**if the inspection becomes work for, to the extent of becoming a search, this can be lawfully done ONLY if there is deemed to be a
PROBABLE CAUSE.
-PROBABLE CAUSE needs to be there even under the exceptions of no warrant search, but that can only be done if there is reason to believe
that probably there is contraband or probably the person is violating the law or doing criminal act.
-CHECKPOINT. There is a very thin line that differentiates between the warrantless search or lawful search and unlawful search.
-INTELLIGENCE REPORT. Policeman is NOT entertaining a probable cause that the crime has been committed to justify the search.
-unlawful search, there is no probable cause, therefore exclusionary evidence that the fruit of unlawful search is excluded as evidence.

**sense of requisites of a valid warrant

1. It must be issued upon probable cause.
PROBABLE CAUSE (not proof beyond reasonable doubt, guilt is not required to establish—probability only and not an absolute certainty)-
facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance of a warrant. Facts and circumstances present before the issuance of a warrant. That is in depth
sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely it on them and act in pursuance thereof.
PROBABLE CAUSE FOR AN ARREST OR FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WARRANT OF ARREST-(points specific offender) facts and
circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be
arrested.
PROBABLE CAUSE FOR A SEARCH-(need NOT point to a specific offender but it must point to some specific violation of our
criminal laws) facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed
and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.
2. Probable cause must be determined personally by the Judge.
3. Such Judge must examine under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce.
4. The warrant must particularly described the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
- Case of Microsoft v. Maxi Corp, Sept. 13, 2004
- Case of Stonehill v. Diokno---- SC invalidated the warrant issued because it merely said “violation of the Central Bank Rules and Regulations” without stating specifically which rule of the
Central Bank has been violated (it should be Probable Cause of something specific.)

**Sec.3 of Rule 126

4
-provides that the search warrant shall NOT issue at about probable cause in connection with one specific offense. That search warrant shall
issue for more than one specific offense, ONE WARRANT, ONE SPECIFIC OFFENSE.

-Case of Central Bank v. Judge Morfe 1967----issuance of a search warrant was challenged. There was a suing of a personal knowledge of the specific illegal
transactions with identified parties. SC said that the search warrant is valid.

-In 1987 Constitution, probable cause may be determined personally by the judge, same in 1935 constitution.
-In 1973 Constitution, probable cause shall be determined by the judge and some other persons authorized by law.
-In 1987 Constitution, same with 1935 Constitution. It is only the Judge will determine probable cause for the purpose of issuing a warrant.

**the prosecution/ fiscal, determines probable cause for the purpose of filing information. (magkaiba)
**Sec.2 probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest. It press the consents that there is already a criminal information filed in court,
and the next step would be to get the accused to be brought within the jurisdiction of the court by ISSUANCE OF A WARRANT OF
ARREST.
-sec.2, issuance of a warrant of arrest likewise of a search warrant.

**probable cause for the purpose of filing a complaint after a preliminary investigation, it is determined by the fiscal because it is still an
executive function, not the court because it is still an executive power.
-preliminary investigation to be conducted by the prosecution is still an executive, hindi pa judiciary.

**4 instances, in the revised rules of criminal procedure, where probable cause is needed to be established.
1. Sec.1 and 3 of RULE 112: by the investigating officer to determine if there is sufficient ground to a gender and wealth founded
beneath that the crime has been committed----PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION.
2. Sec.6 and 9 of RULE 112: probable cause to be determined by the Judge whether a WARRANT OF ARREST shall be issued.
3. Sec.5 (D) of RULE 113: by a peace officer to a private person making a warrantless arrest, when an offense has just been committed
and he has probable cause to be deemed based on personal knowledge of facts and circumstances that the person to be arrested
committed the crime---IN FLAGRANTE DELICTO, in the presence of a private person, it can be done by a peace officer or a
private person.
4. Sec.4 RULE 126: Judge personally determines whether the SEARCH WARRANT shall be issued upon probable cause.

** Case of Alvarez v. Court of First Instance-----(under oath or affirmation)

-The Oath required must refer to the truth of the facts within the personal knowledge of the petitioner, the complainant 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. (page 178)

**the word “PERSONALLY” means that the Judge must personally examine the complaint and the witnesses he may produce in order
to determine probable cause.
-(in difference) Case of Soliven (newspaper publisher) v. Judge Makasiar, the Luis Beltran (commentator against Cory) case, 1988. SC said it’s a describing self of the
existence of probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, the JUDGE IS NOT REQUIRED TO PERSONALLY EXAMINE
THE COMPLAINANT AND HIS WITNESSES.

**What the Constitutional v. Court is the Exclusive and personal responsibility of the issuing Judge to satisfy himself of the existence of
probable cause. What is required is the personal determination of probable cause and not personal examination.

Sec.4 of Rule 126 of the New Rules of Criminal Procedure:

“The Judge must, BEFORE ISSUING THE WARRANT, personally examine in the form of plainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them and attach to the record
their sworn statement together with any affidavits submitted”
**Pendon v. CA------requirement mandated by the law and the rules that the Judge must personally examine the applicant and his witnesses in the FORM of Searching Questions and
Answers before issuing the warrant was NOT sufficiently complied with.

**Case of Lim, Sr. V. Judge Felix------ it reiterated the ruling in the Case of Soliven v. Makasiar that the Judge does not have to personally examine the
complainant and his witnesses. The prosecutor can perform the same (examination) as a commissioner in taking of evidence, however, there
should be a report and necessary documents supporting a Fiscal’s bare certification. All of these should be before the Judge.
----The extent of the Judge’s personal examination depends on the circumstances of each case. (page 181). The personal determination is vested in the Judge by the Constitution.

DOCTRINE AND PROCEDURE (by the Judge):

1. Personally evaluate the report and the supporting documents submitted by the prosecutor regarding the existence of probable cause, and on the basis thereof, he may already
make a personal determination of the existence of probable cause.
2. If he is not satisfied that the probable cause exists, he may disregard the prosecutor’s report and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in
arriving at a conclusion as to the existence of probable cause.
** READ Case of People v. Mamareul/ GR 147607/ Jan.22, 2004 (unreasonable searches and seizures)----(Sec2 of Art 3 ) decision: Constitutional Provision is
implemented under Rule 126 under the Rules of Court.

*Sec.4 (REQUISITE FOR ISSUING SEARCH WARRANT)

-a search warrant shall be issued except upon probable cause in connection with the one specific offense 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 things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines.

*SEC.5 (EXAMINATION OF COMPLAINANT; RECORD)

-The judge must, BEFORE ISSUING THE WARRANT, personally examine in the FORM of Searching Questions and Answers, in writing
and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts personally known to them and attach to the record their sworn
statements, together with the affidavits submitted.
----The issuance of a search warrant is just by only upon the finding of probable cause.
**Requirement in determining the existence of probable cause:
1. Judge must examine the complainant and the witnesses personally
2. The examination must be under oath
3. The examination must be reduced in writing in the form of certain question and answers.
4. Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus not sufficient
5. The examining judge has obtain the provisions in writing of the complainant and his witnesses, and to attach them in the records,
such written preposition is necessary in order that the judge may be able to determine existence or non existence of probable
cause.
Decision: The search warrants stain them with illegality by the failure of the judge to conform with the essential requisites of taking the
depositions in writing and attaching them to the record, rendering the search warrant invalid.
****Judge must examine the complainant and his witnesses he may produce is a CONTRARY to the Case of Soliven v. Makasiar that the judge
did NOT examine the complainant and the witnesses.

**”PERSONALLY” as defined:
-The determination of probable cause by the judge. (Case of Mamareul) To examine the complainant and the witnesses.

5
** Case of Uy Kheytin v. Villareal------ PURPOSE OF PARTICULARITY OF DESCRIPTION. (page 182)
-The evident purpose and intent of this requirement is to limit the things to be seized to those, and only those, particularly described in the search
warrant- to leave the officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles they shall seize, to the end that unreasonable searches and
seizures may not be made,- that abuses may not be committed..
-----this means that whatever is not included in the description may not be seized.
-in the jurisprudence: A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized when the description therein is specific as the
circumstances will ordinarily allow..or when the description expresses a conclusion of fact-not of law-by which the warrant officer may be guided
in making the search and seizure..; or when the things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the
warrant is being issued...

**The rule that Searches and Seizures must be supported by a valid warrant, is NOT an absolute rule!
-what the provision only prohibits is UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES
-Search and Seizure not supported by warrant is not necessarily unreasonable.

**Sec.2 prohibits unreasonable search and seizure.

-general rule, search and seizure is unreasonable if the is no warrant.
-------Exceptions are warrantless search and seizure:
1. Search incidental to an arrest
*Case of Moreno v. Ago Chi, 1909 case--------
*Case of Nolasco v. Pano----SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO AN ARREST CANNOT BE MADE IN A PLACE OTHER THAN THE PLACE OF AN ARREST ------the arrest has been made
while Nolasco was riding a jeepney. Search was made in her house several blocks away from the place of arrest. Court held: the rule falls for a strict application of the
exception that is to absolutely to limit a warrantless search to a person who is lawfully arrested to his/her person at the time of and incident to his/her arrest and to
dangerous weapons or anything which may be used as proof of the commission of the offense. ------Such warrantless search obviously CANNOT be made in a place other
than the place of arrest.
2. Search of moving vehicles
* Case of Papa v. Mago-------
* Case of Aniag v. COMELEC----the search of a car madde by police officers twenty meters away from the entrance to the house of the Houuse of Reps.was not justified by any
earlier confidential report nor by the behaviour of appearance of the motorist. Court held: an extensive search without warrant will only be resorted if the officers conducting
the search have reasonable or probable cause to believe before the search that either the motorist was a law offender or that they would find the instrumentality or
evidence pertaining to the commission of a crime in the vehicle to be searched. No evidence came up in the trial that the car carried contraband.
3. Seizure of evidence in plain view
Requirements:
1. There must be a valid prior intrusion into a place. Evidence in plain view presupposes that it is made inside a building or a house. --- The entry of a person
seizing a contraband in plain view, entered the building lawfully.
-evidence must be inadvertently discovered by the police. (If an officer encounters prohibited objects only after poking around, the discovery would not be
inadvertent) you did not look for it, nandoon lan.
-the illegality of the evidence must be immediately apparel and it is noticed without further search.
*when the manner is fall for the eyes of the police officer, from the object a person is carrying, seizure of the State would not require warrant.
*Case of People v. Musa---the exception the discovery is inadvertent
4. Customs searches
5. When there is a waiver of the right
*Case of De Garcia v. Locsin (reiterated in the case of People v. Varex); Case of People v. Compaction---the act of the accused a penal in allowing soldiers to enter his premises
and his consequence silenced during the unreasonable search and seizure would not be construed as voluntary submission or a_ waiver.
-the waiver must be understood to cover only what is imprudent within the terms of the language. A permission granted for officers to enter a house to look for rebel
soldiers does not include permission for a room to room search for firearms.
-waiver may be either expressly or impliedly. The lack of objection to the seaech and seizure is not tantamount to a waiver of his constitutional right or a voluntary
submission to the warrantless search and seizure.
6. Exigent circumstance
The soldiers saw a firearm in front of the window of a building. They ceased it as evidence kasi it would be practical, nagbabakbakan nga. It is part of the exception.
7. Stop and frisk rule
*Case of Posadas v. CA----kutob ng pulis.again.it comes into plain ung probable cause.there must be always a reasonable bases to belief na may criminal
*Sec.2 covers both search warrants and warrants of arrest
-both must satisfy the same requirements as to probable cause and the manner of its determination.
*”John Doe” warrant of arrest valid? (page 183)
-it is a resorted to when the identity of the one arrested was not known.
-limit, kelangan din may pagkakakilanlan
-it requires a particularity of description personae. There is something that gives reason to arrest the particular person.
*Case of People v. Veloso

**Warrantless arrest
-generally ILLEGAL.
-Rule 113, Sec.5, Rules of Court: ARREST WITHOUT A WARRANT; WHEN LAWFUL. - A peace officer or private person may,
without a warrant, arrest a person:
a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or attempting to commit an offense;
b) When an offense has in fact been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and
*Case of Go v. CA
c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgement
or temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
Flagrante delicto rule (buy-bust operation)*Case of People v. Burgos

*Case of People v. Salvatier--------Invalidate

an arrest made six days after the alleged commission of the crime.
-Three-months, after the commission of the crime, warrantless arrest is invalidation, even six days.
**ENTRAPMENT
-may or may not be legal, depending upon the circumstances
-THE LAW FORBIDS----- inducing another to violate the law, the seduction of an otherwise innocent person to a criminal career
-when the police officers are the ones to induce somebody to commit a crime, that is not entarppment. That is laraedy unlawful
-when the perpetrator himself has already a criminal mind and offers to sell. A trap is hatched to catch him safely then it is a lawful entrapment.
-THERE MUST BE NO INDUCEMENT FOR A PERSON TO COMMIT A CRIME.
-if the police officers made the induction/inducement, then it is unlawful
*Case of People v. Doria----- the criminal intent originates in the mind of the entrapping person and the accused is lured into the commission of the
offense charged in order to prosecute him, there is intrapment and no conviction may be had.
*Case of People v. De la Cruz

**VALIDITY OF AN ARREST BE CHALLENGED

-any objection involving a warrant of arrest or procedure in the 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. The accused must move to the quashing of information against him
before arraignment.. Otherwise, he is stopped from questioning the validity of the arrest.
**Sec.2, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules in Criminal Procedure:
-an 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. *Case of Okabe v. Judge de Leon, GR 150185, May 27, 2004.

6
