2023 Ust Golden Notes Remedial Law 2 601 650

C2
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
NOTE: Filing in such courts requires A: YES. The court held that power to issue search
compelling reasons stated in the application. warrant is inherent in all courts, such that the power
The rule is of a mandatory nature. (Pilipinas of courts to issue it where the place to be searched
Shell Petroleum Corporation v. Romars is within the jurisdiction is not intended to exclude
International Gases Corporation, G.R. No. other courts from exercising the same power.
189669, 16 Feb. 2015)
Sec. 2 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court provides that
2. However, if the criminal action has been filed, generally, the search warrant application must be
the application shall only be made in the court filed with the court which has territorial jurisdiction
where the criminal action is pending (Sec. 2, over the place where the offence was alleged to be
Rule 126, ROC, as amended); and committed. However, for compelling reasons, which
must be expressly stated in the application, it can be
3. In case of search warrant involving heinous filed in a court other than the one having
crimes, illegal gambling, illegal possession of jurisdiction. (Petron Gasul LPG Dealers Association,
firearms and ammunitions as well as violations et. al, v. Elena Lao, et. al., G.R. No. 205010, 18 July
of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2016)
2002, the Intellectual Property Code, the Anti-
Money Laundering Act of 2001, the Tariff and Ex parte Application for a Search Warrant
Customs Code, the Executive judges and
whenever they are on official leave of absence An application for a search warrant is heard ex
or are not physically present in the station, the parte. It is neither a trial nor a part of the trial.
Vice-Judges of RTCs of Manila and Quezon City Action on these applications must be expedited for
shall have the authority to act on the application time is of the essence. Great reliance has to be
filed by the NBI, PNP and the Anti-Crime Task accorded by the judge to the testimonies under oath
Force (ACTAF), Presidential Anti-Organized of the complainant and the witnesses. (Santos v.
Crime Task Force (PAOC-TF), and the Reaction Pryce Gases, 538 SCRA 474, 487 citing Chemise
Against Crime Task Force (REACT-TF). Lacoste, S.A. v. Fernandez, 214 Phil. 332)
(Administrative Matter No. 99-10-09-SC; Sps.
Marimla v. People, G.R. No. 158467, 16 Oct. 2009) Requisites before a Search Warrant may be
issued (P-O-D-E-P2-S)
NOTE: The application shall be personally endorsed
by the heads of such agencies and shall particularly 1. It must be issued upon Probable cause;
describe therein the places to be searched and/or 2. It must be in connection with One specific
the property or things to be seized as prescribed in offense;
the Rules of Court. The Executive Judges and the 3. Probable cause must be Determined by the
Vice-Executive Judges concerned shall issue the issuing judge personally;
warrants if justified, which may be served outside 4. The judge must have personally Examined, in
the territorial jurisdiction of said courts. (Sps. the form of searching questions and answers,
Marimla v. People, G.R. No. 158467, 16 Oct. 2009) the applicant and his witnesses;
5. The search warrant must Particularly describe
Q: A search warrant was issued by the RTC-La or identify the property to be seized as far as the
Trinidad against Baguio Gas, whose business circumstances will ordinarily allow;
presence is in Baguio, City and not in La 6. The warrant issued must Particularly describe
Trinidad. Can RTC-La Trinidad issue said the place to be searched and the persons or
warrant considering that the offenses imputed things to be seized; and
against Baguio Gas were committed outside its 7. The Sworn statements together with the
territorial jurisdiction? affidavits submitted by witnesses must be
attached to the record. (Prudente v. Dayrit, G.R.
No. 82870, 14 Dec. 1989)
UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 586

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2
VII. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

NOTE: The warrant must not have been issued An Information was filed against Sison, Yanson,
more than 10 days prior to the search made and Bautista before the RTC of Cotabato City,
pursuant thereto. (Sec. 10, Rule 126, ROC, as charging them with violation of Sec. 4 of the
amended) Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972. Is the search and
seizure made valid?
Probable Cause for the Issuance of Search
Warrant A: NO. Sec. 2, Art. III of the 1987 Constitution
requires a warrant to be issued by a judge before a
Probable cause, as a condition for the issuance of a search can be validly effected. While there are
search warrant, is such reasons supported by facts exceptions to this rule, warrantless searches can
and circumstances as will warrant a cautious man to only be carried out when founded on probable
believe that his action and the means taken in cause, or “a reasonable ground of
prosecuting it are legally just and proper. (HPS suspicion supported by circumstances sufficiently
Software and Communications Corporation v. PLDT, strong in themselves to warrant a cautious man to
G.R. No. 170217, 10 Dec. 2012) believe that the person accused is guilty of the
offense with which he is charged.” There must be a
It requires facts and circumstances that would lead confluence of several suspicious circumstances. A
a reasonably prudent man to believe that an offense solitary tip hardly suffices as probable cause; items
has been committed and that the object sought in seized during warrantless searches based on
connection with that offense are in the place to be solitary tips are inadmissible as evidence. (People v
searched. (Ibid) Sison, G.R. No. 238453, 31 July 2019)
Basis of Probable Cause Q: Are facts discovered during surveillance

operations conducted by the authorities on the
The basis must be the personal knowledge of the basis of information and evidence provided by
complainant or the witnesses he may produce and the complainants constitute personal
not mere hearsay. The test of sufficiency of a knowledge which could form the basis for the
deposition or affidavit is whether it has been drawn issuance of a search warrant?
in a manner that perjury could be charged thereon
and the affiant be held liable for damage caused. A: YES. The facts discovered during surveillance
conducted by the NBI agents- on the basis of
Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses information and evidence provided by petitioners -
are not sufficient. The judge has to take the constitute personal knowledge, which could form
depositions of the complainant and the witnesses in the basis for the issuance of a search warrant. The
writing and attach them to the record. (Mata v. surveillance and investigation conducted by an
Bayona, G.R. No. L-50720, 26 Mar. 1984) agent of the NBI obtained from confidential
information supplied to him enabled him to gain
Q: The Municipal Police Station of M'lang, North personal knowledge of the illegal activities
Cotabato received a radio message about a complained of. The validity of the search warrant is
silver-gray Isuzu pickup—with plate number sustained. (Petron LPG Dealers Association, et al. v.
619 and carrying three (3) people—that was Nena Ang, et al., G.R. No. 199371, 03 Feb. 2016)
transporting marijuana from Pikit. At around
9:30 a.m., the tipped vehicle reached the Factors to Consider for the Determination of
checkpoint and was stopped by the team of Probable Cause
police officers on standby. The team leader
asked the driver about inspecting the vehicle. 1. Time of the application in relation to the alleged
The driver alighted and, at an officer's prodding, offense committed. The nearer the time at
opened the pickup's hood. Two (2) sacks of which the observation of the offense is alleged
marijuana were discovered beside the engine. to have been made, the more reasonable the
587 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

FACULTY OF CIVIL L AW
C2
C2

finds no probable cause, disregard the prosecutor’s identify the place intended. (People v. Peck, 1974, 38
report and require the submission of supporting CA 3d 993, 1000, 113 CR 806)
affidavits of witnesses to aid him in determining his
existence. What he is never allowed to do is to follow Description of a place to be searched is sufficient if
blindly the prosecutor’s bare certification as to the the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable
existence of probable cause. (Ibid) effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and
distinguish it from other places in the community.
Tests to determine Particularity of the Place to Any designation or description known to the
be searched locality that points out the place to the exclusion of
all others, and on inquiry leads the officers
1. When the description therein is as specific as unerringly to it, satisfies the constitutional
the ordinary circumstance will allow; (People v. requirement. (Retired SP04 Laud v. People, G.R. No.
Rubio, G.R. No. L-35500, 27 Oct. 1932) 199032, 19 Nov. 2014)
2. When the description expresses a conclusion of
fact, not of law which the warrant officer may Rule with respect to the Time of making a search
be guided in making the search and seizure; and
3. When the things described therein are limited GR: A search warrant must be served at daytime.
to those which bear direct relation to the
offense for which the warrant is being issued. XPN: A search warrant may be made at night when
it is positively asserted in the affidavit that the
Importance of describing with Particularity the property is on the person or in the place ordered to
Place to be searched and the Persons or Things be searched. The affidavit making such assertion
to be seized must itself be sufficient as to the fact so asserted, for
if the same is based upon hearsay, the general rule
The purpose of the rule is to leave the officers of the shall apply. A search warrant conducted at night
law with no discretion regarding what articles they without direction to that effect is an unlawful
shall seize, to the end that “unreasonable searches search. The same rule applies where the warrant
and seizures” may not be made that abuses may not left blank the “time” for making the search.
be committed. (Stonehill v. Diokno, G.R. No. L-19550,
19 June 1967) Where a search is to be made during the nighttime,
the authority for executing the same at that time
Standard for determining the Legality of a should appear in the directive on the face of the
warrant against a Person search warrant. (Asian Surety v. Herrera, G.R. No. L-
25232, 20 Dec. 1973)
The standard is whether the person has been
sufficiently described with particularity sufficient to Q: May the implementation of the search
identify him with reasonable certainty. Even if the warrant be done on different days?
name is unknown or erroneously written, the
description of the person with certainty to identify A: YES. It could be served at any time within its 10-
him and set him apart from others is enough to lend day lifetime, and if its object or purpose cannot be
validity to a warrant. (United States v. Ferrone, 438 accomplished in one day, the same may not be used
F.2d 381, 3d Cir. 1971) for a different purpose on each day. After the
articles for which the warrant was issued have been
Standard for determining the Legality of a seized, the same warrant cannot be utilized as
warrant against a Place to be searched authority to make another search. (Gorospe, 2006,
citing Uy Kheytin v. Villareal, G.R. No. 16009, 21 Sept.
The warrant must sufficiently describe the premises 1920, 42 Phil. 886)
to be searched so that the officer executing the
warrant may, with reasonable effort, ascertain and

C2
REMEDIAL LAW
The time must not be one which is intrusive or age and discretion residing in the same locality. (Sec.
violative of one’s privacy, like at the middle of the 8, Rule 126, ROC, as amended)
night. Then, too, depending on the locality, what
may be reasonable time in one place would not be Right to Break Door or Window to Effect Search
so in some other cases. (Gorospe, 2006)
The officer, if refused admittance to the place of
Service of the Search Warrant directed search after giving notice of his purpose
and authority, may break open any outer or inner
Generally, officers executing a search must do the door or window of a house or any part of a house or
following acts: anything therein to execute the warrant to liberate
himself or any person lawfully aiding him when
1. Announce their presence; unlawfully detained therein. (Sec. 7, Rule 126, ROC,
2. Identify themselves to the accused and to the as amended)
persons who rightfully have possession of the
premises to be searched; “Knock and announce” principle
3. Show to them the search warrant; and
4. Explain the warrant in a language or dialect An officer should knock, introduce himself and
known and understood by them. (People v. announce his purpose and only in exceptional cases
Huang Zen Hua, G.R. No. 139301, 29 Sept. 2004) may he forego the same, like when his safety is in
danger of being jeopardized or when evidence is
Rules to be observed in case of Search of a House about to be destroyed. (Wilkinson v. Arkansas, 514
or Room U.S. 927)
In order to ensure that the execution of the warrant A lawful entry is the indispensable predicate of a
will be fair and reasonable, and in order to insure reasonable search. A search would violate the
that the officer conducting the search shall not constitutional guarantee against unreasonable
exceed his authority or use unnecessary severity in search and seizure if the entry was illegal, whether
executing the search warrant, as well as for the accomplished by force, or by threat or show of force
officer’s own protection against unjust accusations, or obtained by stealth, or coercion.
it is required that the search be conducted in the
presence of the: Instances when an Unannounced Intrusion into
the Premises is permissible
1. Lawful occupant of the place to be searched;
2. Any member of his family; or 1. A party whose premises or is entitled to the
3. In their absence, in the presence of 2 witnesses possession thereof refuses, upon demand, to
of sufficient age and discretion residing in the open it;
same locality. (Sec. 8, Rule 126, ROC, as 2. Such person in the premises already knew of
amended) the identity of the officers and of their authority
and persons;
NOTE: A public officer or employee who exceeds his 3. The officers are justified in the honest belief
authority or uses unnecessary severity in executing that there is an imminent peril to life or limb; or
the warrant is liable under Art. 129, RPC. 4. Those in the premises, aware of the presence of
someone outside, are then engaged in activity
Search in presence of Two Witnesses which justifies the officers to believe that an
escape or the destruction of evidence is being
No search of a house, room, or any other premises attempted.
shall be made except in the presence of the lawful
occupant thereof or any member of his family or in NOTE: The exceptions above are not exclusive or
the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient conclusive. There is no formula for the

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2

determination of reasonableness. Each case is to be 2. Consented search (waiver of right);
decided on its own facts and circumstances. (People 3. Search of moving vehicle (Caroll doctrine);
v. Huang Zhen Hua, G.R. No. 139301, 29 Sept. 2004) 4. Checkpoints; body checks in airports;
5. Plain view doctrine;
Personal Property to be Seized 6. Stop and frisk situations (Terry doctrine);
7. Enforcement of custom laws;
The property subject of a search warrant is personal 8. Immediate control test;
property. A search warrant may be issued for search 9. Exigent and emergency circumstances; and
and seizure of the following: 10. Inspection of buildings and other premises for
the enforcement of fire, sanitary, and building
1. Personal property subject of the offense; regulations.
2. Personal property stolen or embezzled and
other proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or 1. Search incident to lawful arrest
3. Personal property used or intended to be used
as a means of committing an offense. This includes searching the person who is arrested,
in order to find and seize the things connected with
NOTE: It is not required that the property to be the crime as fruits or as the means by which it was
seized should be owned by the person against committed.
whom the search warrant is directed. It is sufficient
that the person against whom the warrant is NOTE: In searches incident to lawful arrest, the
directed has control or possession of the property arrest must precede the search and the process
sought to be seized. (Burgos v. Chief of Staff, G.R. No. cannot be reversed, unless, the police officers have
L-65332, 26 Dec. 1984) probable cause to make the arrest at the outset of
the search. (People v. Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233, 22
Human remains as subject of a Search Warrant Feb. 2007)
Human remains can be a subject of a search Parameters of a Search incident to a Lawful

warrant, since “personal property” refers to the Arrest; Immediate Reach and Control Rule
thing’s mobility, and not its capacity to be owned or
alienated by a particular person. Art. 416 of the NCC Sec. 13 of Rule 126 of the Revised Rules on Criminal
states that all things which can be transported from Procedure specially enumerates the allowable
place to place are deemed to be personal property. scope of a search incident to a lawful arrest. The
Considering that human remains can generally be provision limits the search to the following:
transported from place to place, considering further
that they qualify under the phrase “subject of the 1. Dangerous weapons;
offense” given that they prove the crime’s corpus 2. Anything which may have been used in the
delicti, it follows that they may be valid subjects of a commission of an offense; and
search warrant. (Laud v. People, G.R. No. 199032, 19 3. Anything which constitute proof in the
Nov. 2014) commission of an offense.
Exceptions to Search Warrant Requirement Purpose
GR: The procurement of a warrant is required 1. To ensure the officer’s safety;

before a law enforcer can validly conduct a search 2. To prevent the frustration of the arrest itself;
and seizure. and
3. To prevent the concealment or destruction of
XPNs: Instances of a valid warrantless search the evidence.
1. Search incident to lawful arrest;

C2
REMEDIAL LAW
2. Consented Search an aircraft, or in other motor vehicles since they can
quickly be moved out of the locality or jurisdiction
Consent cannot be presumed simply because the where the warrant must be sought. (People v.
accused failed to object to the search. To constitute Mariacos, G.R. No. 188611, 16 June 2010)
a waiver, the following requisites must concur:
Peace officers in such cases, however, are limited to
1. The right exists; routine checks where the examination of the vehicle
2. The person involved had knowledge, actual or is limited to visual inspection. When a vehicle is
constructive, of the existence of such rights; and stopped and subjected to an extensive search, such
3. Actual intention to relinquish such rights. would be constitutionally permissible only if the
(People v. Burgos, G.R. No. 92739, 02 Aug. 1991) officers made it upon probable cause, i.e., upon a
belief, reasonably arising out of circumstances
NOTE: A peaceful submission to a search or seizure known to the seizing officer, that an automobile or
is not consent or an invitation thereto but is merely other vehicle contains as item, article or object
a demonstration of regard for the supremacy of the which by law is subject to seizure and destruction.
law. (People vs. Nuevas, G.R. No. 170233, 22 Feb. (People v. Libnao, G.R. No. 136860, 20 Jan. 2003)
2007)
Q: A police officer received an information from
Canine/Dog sniff test an asset regarding the alleged purchase of shabu
by suspected drug dealers Evardo and Algozo,
The canine sniff test was applied by the Supreme who were already in the police watch list and
Court of the United States differently depending on were the subject of prior police operations. The
the place where the sniff was done as when the police officers set up their checkpoint. In the
same was conducted in a private resident, airport, course thereof, the team flagged down a tricycle,
highway or in routine traffic stops. with Evardo and Algozo seated at the tricycle’s
sidecar. Thereafter, the officer allegedly saw
The government’s use of trained dogs to investigate Algozo place something in the rolled-up rain
the home and its surroundings is a “search” within cover of the sidecar. He then went to retrieve it
the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. (Riano, and recovered seven plastic sachets containing
2019) a white crystalline substance. Subsequently,
Evardo and Algozo were asked to disembark.
Use of thermal imaging device The police asked for Algozo’s wallet, which
Algozo gave, and frisked him after. Upon
“Where the government uses a device that is not in frisking, they found 11 more plastic sachets
general public use, to explore details of a private containing a white crystalline substance inside
home that would previously have been unknowable his wallet. While Evardo was alighting as
without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a instructed, a police officer saw another sachet
Fourth Amendment “search,” and is presumptively tucked at the edge of the garter of Evardo’s
unreasonable without a warrant.” (Kyllo v. U.S., 533 underwear. Thereafter, the accused were
U.S. 27, 11 June 2001) arrested. Were the search, seizure, and arrest
conducted by the police officers at the
3. Search of moving vehicle; Carroll Doctrine checkpoint valid?
Search of moving vehicles or Carroll Doctrine can be A: NO. A warrantless search of a moving vehicle
validly made without a search warrant. A search cannot be premised solely on an initial tip. It must
warrant may readily be obtained when the search is be found on probable cause where “there must be a
made in a store, dwelling house or other immobile confluence of several suspicious circumstances.” As
structure. But it is impracticable to obtain a warrant for the cause of the search, each such circumstance
when the search is conducted on a mobile ship, on must occur before the search is commenced.

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2

Further, they must each be independently notice that ordinary constitutional protections
suspicious. Thus, when law officers are predisposed against warrantless searches and seizures do not
to perceive guilt—as when specific persons are apply to routine airport procedures. (Ibid)
targets of checkpoints, patrols, and similar
operations—their subjective perception cannot 5. Plain view doctrine
anchor probable cause.
Objects falling in the plain view of an officer has a
Moreover, independently of the tip conveyed to a right to be in the position to have that view are
police officer, there was no “confluence of several subject to seizure and may be presented as
suspicious circumstances” that were “sufficiently evidence.
strong in themselves” to justify a search more
intensive than a mere visual survey. Any item For the doctrine to apply, the following requisites
subsequently obtained cannot be the basis of any must be met:
further legal act, including arrest, prosecution, and
conviction for criminal liability. (Virgilio Evardo y 1. Prior valid intrusion based on the valid
Lopena v. People, G.R. No. 234317, 10 May 2021) warrantless arrest in which the police are
legally present in the pursuit of their official
4. Checkpoints; body checks in airports duties;
2. Evidence was inadvertently discovered by the
Searches conducted in checkpoints are valid for as police who had the right to be where they are;
long as they are warranted by the exigencies of 3. Evidence must be immediately apparent; and
public order and are conducted in a way least 4. “Plain view” justified mere seizure of evidence
intrusive to motorists. For as long as the vehicle is without further search. (People v. Mariacos, G.R.
neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a No. 188611, 21 June 2010)
body search, and the inspection of the vehicle is
limited to a visual search, said routine checks cannot The ‘Inadvertence’ Requirement under the Plain
be regarded as violative of an individual’s right View Doctrine
against unreasonable search. (People v. Vinecario,
G.R. No. 141137, 20 Jan. 2004) It means that the officer must not have known in
advance of the location of the evidence and intend
In body checks in airports, passengers attempting to to seize it. Discovery should not be anticipated.
board an aircraft routinely pass through metal (United Laboratories v. Isip, G.R. No. 163858. 28 June
detectors; their carry-on baggage as well as checked 2005)
luggage are routinely subjected to x-ray scans.
Should these procedures suggest the presence of The plain view doctrine does not apply where
suspicious objects, physical searches are conducted officers did not just accidentally discover the
to determine what the objects are. (People v. evidence but actually searched for it. The plain view
Johnson, G.R. No. 138881, 18 Dec. 2000) doctrine may not be used to launch unbridled
searches and indiscriminate seizures or to extend a
There is little question that such searches are general exploratory search made solely to find
reasonable, given their minimal intrusiveness, the evidence of defendant’s guilt. (Valeroso v. CA, G.R.
gravity of the safety interests involved, and the No. 164815, 03 Sept. 2009)
reduced privacy expectations associated with
airline travel. Indeed, travelers are often notified In the course of the lawful intrusion, the officer
through airport public address systems, signs, and came inadvertently across a piece of evidence
notices in their airline tickets that they are subject incriminating the accused. The object must be open
to search and, if any prohibited materials or to eye and hand and its discovery inadvertent.
substances are found, such would be subject to (Miclat v. People, G.R. No. 176077, 31 Aug. 2011;
seizure. These announcements place passengers on People v. Chi Chan Liu, G.R. No. 189272, 21 Jan. 2015)

C2
REMEDIAL LAW
surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that
The “Immediately apparent” requirement under the person who manifests unusual suspicious
the Plain View Doctrine conduct has weapons or contraband concealed
about him. (Esquillo v. People, G.R. No. 182010, 25
To be immediately apparent, the rule does not Aug. 2010)
require an unduly high degree of certainty as to the
incriminating character of the evidence. “It requires Dual Purpose of the Stop-and-Frisk Principle
merely that the seizure be presumptively
reasonable assuming that there is probable cause to The “stop-and-frisk” practice serves a dual purpose:
associate the property with criminal activity; that a
nexus exists between a viewed object and criminal 1. the general interest of effective crime
activity.” (United Laboratories v. Isip, G.R. No. prevention and detection; and
163858, 28 June 2005) 2. the more pressing interest of safety and self-
preservation which permit the police officer to
6. Stop and frisk operations take steps to assure himself that the person
with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly
This is a limited protective search of the outer weapon that could be used against him.
clothing of a person to determine the presence of (Esquillo v. People, G.R. No. 182010, 25 Aug.
weapons. Probable cause is not required, but a 2010)
genuine reason (not mere suspicion) must exist, in
the light of the officer’s experience and surrounding NOTE: The officer may search the outer clothing of
circumstances, to warrant the belief that the the person in an attempt to discover weapons which
persons has concealed weapons. (Malacat v. Court of might be used to assault him. (Manalili v. CA, G.R. No.
Appeals, G.R. No. 123595, 12 Dec. 1997) 113447, 09 Oct. 1997)
Its object is either to: Q: The search warrant authorized the seizure of
“undetermined quantity of shabu.” During the
1. Determine the identity of a suspicious service of the search warrant, the raiding team
individual; or also recovered a kilo of dried marijuana leaves
2. Maintain the status quo momentarily while the wrapped in newsprint. The accused moved to
police officer seeks to obtain more information. suppress the marijuana leaves as evidence for
the violation of Sec. 11 of the Comprehensive
Terry Doctrine Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 since they were
not covered by the search warrant. The State
A valid “stop” by an officer requires that he has a justified the seizure of the marijuana leaves
reasonable and articulable belief that criminal under the “plain view” doctrine. There was no
activity has happened or is about to happen. The indication of whether the marijuana leaves were
“frisk” made after the “stop” must be done because discovered and seized before or after the
of a reasonable belief that the person stopped is in seizure of the shabu. If you are the judge, how
possession of a weapon that will pose danger to the would you rule the motion to suppress? (2008
officer and others. The “frisk” must be a mere pat BAR)
down outside the person’s outer garment and not
unreasonably intrusive. (Riano, 2019) A: It should be granted. The search warrant violates
the constitutional and statutory requirement that
Existence of a genuine reason under the Terry should particularly describe the person or things to
Doctrine be seized. (Sec. 2, Art. III, 1987 Constitution; Sec. 2,
Rule 126, ROC, as amended)
What is essential is that a genuine reason must exist,
in light of the police officer’s experience and

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2

The “plain view” doctrine cannot be invoked need for a search warrant because the accused
because the marijuana leaves were wrapped in is caught in flagrante delicto.
newsprint. Besides the marijuana leaves are not the
subject of the search warrant. There was no c. Private searches – In a case where the
evidence as to whether the marijuana leaves were evidence was obtained by a private person
discovered and seized before or after the seizure of acting in a private capacity, while performing
the shabu. If they were discovered after the seizure company standard operating procedures and
of the shabu, then they could not have been seized without state participation and intervention. It
in plain view. The confiscation of the marijuana was held that the constitutional rights cannot
leaves must not be upheld, hence rendering the be invoked when there is no government
same inadmissible in evidence against the accused. interference. (People v. Marti, G.R. No. 81561, 18
Jan. 1991)
7. Enforcement of custom laws
d. Immediate control test – search incidental to
The Collector of Customs is authorized to effect a lawful warrantless arrest may extend beyond
searches and seizure for the enforcement of the person where the exigencies of the situation
customs duties and tariff laws. (General Travel justify a warrantless search for dangerous
Services v. David, G.R. No. L-19259, 23 Sept. 1966) weapons and to prevent the arrestee from
destroying evidence of the crime within reach.
The RTCs are devoid of any competence to pass (People v. Musa, G.R. No. 95329, 27 Jan. 1993)
upon the validity or regularity of seizure and
forfeiture proceedings conducted by the Bureau of Effect of an Illegal Search and Seizure (Fruit of
Customs and to enjoin or otherwise interfere with the Poisonous Tree Doctrine)
these proceedings. It is the Collector of Customs,
sitting in seizure and forfeiture proceedings, who Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the
has exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all preceding section shall be inadmissible for any
questions touching on the seizure and forfeiture of purpose in any proceeding. (Sec. 3(2), Art. 3, 1987
dutiable goods. (Asian Terminals, Inc. v. Bautista- Constitution)
Ricafort, G.R. No. 166901, 27 Oct. 2006)
The effect of an illegal search and seizure is the
8. Other exceptions exclusion of the evidence obtained from being used
against the person whose rights were violated by
a. Exigent and emergency circumstances – a the search.
prevailing general chaos and disorder because
of an ongoing coup, and the raid of the The exclusionary rule prevents, upon proper
office/building was precipitated by an motion or objection, the admission of evidence
intelligence report that said office was being illegally obtained. Thus, the most important effect of
used as headquarters by the RAM. Also, the an illegal search and seizure is the exclusion of the
surveillance team, before the raid, was fired evidence obtained from being used against the
upon by the people inside. The raiding team had person whose rights were violated by the search,
no opportunity to apply for warrant as the court the evidence being the proverbial and
then was closed. (People v. de Gracia, G.R. Nos. jurisprudential “fruit of the poisonous tree.” The
102009-10, 06 July 1994) violation of the individual’s rights also inevitably
results into civil, criminal, and administrative
b. Buy-bust operation – This is a form of charges against the officer responsible for the
entrapment legally employed by peace officers violation. (Riano, 2019)
as an effective way of apprehending drug
dealers in committing an offense. There is no

C2
REMEDIAL LAW
Parties who may Question the Validity of Search through said warrant. (Demaisip v. CA, G.R. No.
and Seizure 89393, 25 Jan. 1991)
It can be contested only by the party whose rights Q: Boy Maton, a neighborhood tough guy, was
have been impaired thereby, and that the objection arrested by a police officer on suspicion that he
to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal was keeping prohibited drugs in his clutch bag.
and cannot be availed by third parties. (Stonehill v. When Boy Maton was searched immediately
Diokno, G.R. L-19550, 19 June 1967) after the arrest, the officer found and recovered
10 sachets of shabu neatly tucked in the inner
Remedies against an Unlawful Search linings of the clutch bag. At the time of his arrest,
Boy Maton was watching a basketball game
1. Motion to quash the search warrant; being played in the town plaza, and he was
2. Motion to suppress as evidence the objects cheering for his favorite team. He was
illegally taken; subsequently charged with illegal possession of
3. Replevin, if the objects are legally possessed; dangerous drugs, and he entered a plea of not
and guilty when he was arraigned.
4. Certiorari, where the search warrant is a patent
nullity. During the trial, Boy Maton moved for the
dismissal of the information on the ground that
NOTE: The remedies are alternative. If a motion to the facts revealed that he had been illegally
quash is denied, a motion to suppress cannot be arrested. He further moved for the suppression
availed consequently. The illegality of the search of the evidence confiscated from him as being
warrant does not call for the return of the things the consequence of the illegal arrest, hence,
seized, the possession of which is prohibited by law. the fruit of the poisonous tree. The trial court, in
However, those personal properties seized in denying the motions of Boy Maton, explained
violation of the constitutional immunity whose that at the time the motions were filed Boy
possession is not illegal or unlawful per se ought to Maton had already waived the right to raise the
be returned to their rightful owner or possessor. issue of the legality of the arrest. The trial court
observed that, pursuant to the Rules of
Venue of filing a Motion to quash Search warrant Court, Boy Maton, as the accused, should have
assailed the validity of the arrest before
1. It may be filed and acted upon only by the court entering his plea to the information. Hence, the
where the action has been instituted; or trial court opined that any adverse consequence
2. If no criminal action has been instituted, it may of the alleged illegal arrest had also been equally
be filed in and resolved by the court that issued waived.
the search warrant. However, if such court
failed to resolve the motion and a criminal case Comment on the ruling of the trial court. (2017
is subsequently filed in another court, the BAR)
motion shall be resolved by the latter court.
(Sec. 14, Rule 126, ROC, as amended) A: The ruling of the court denying the motion for
dismissal of the information on the ground of illegal
Rule with respect to Waiver of Legality and arrest is proper. Under the Rules of Criminal
Admissibility of a Search warrant Procedure, the accused’s failure to file a motion to
quash before plea is a waiver of the objection to lack
Objection to the legality of the search warrant, or as of personal jurisdiction or of the objection to an
to the admissibility of the evidence obtained is illegal arrest.
deemed waived where no objection of the search
warrant was raised during the trial of the case nor Here, Boy Maton entered a plea without filing a
to the admissibility of the evidence obtained motion to quash on the ground of lack of personal

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2

jurisdiction. Hence, he is deemed to have waived the In a search conducted by jail guards, the search is
ground of illegal arrest which is subsumed under routinary and is intended to preserve internal order
lack of personal jurisdiction. and security in the entire detention facility. A search
conducted as a protective measure in prison
However, the ruling denying the motion to suppress management is noncriminal in nature and does not
evidence is not correct. The SC has held that a require a finding of probable cause.
waiver of an illegal, warrantless arrest does not
carry with it a waiver of the inadmissibility of Meanwhile, a search carried out as an incident to a
evidence seized during an illegal warrantless arrest. criminal investigation and intended to uncover
A waiver of an illegal arrest is not a waiver of an evidence of a crime may be narrower in scope and
illegal search. may be limited only to a specific jail cell and articles
specified in the warrant, as in the case. As a rule, a
The Constitution provides that evidence seized in warrant is still necessary to execute a search in a
violation of the right against illegal search is controlled detention facility in relation to a criminal
inadmissible in evidence. investigation. Strict compliance with governing
laws, rules, and procedures on the issuance of
Here, the evidence seized was by virtue of an illegal search warrants and implementation of the search
search since the arrest was illegal. Thus, such in a controlled detention facility is required to carry
evidence may be suppressed. out a valid search. (Re: Rolando Espinosa, Sr., A.M.
No. RTJ-17-2494 & A.M. No. RTJ-19-2557, 26 Jan.
Q: Judge Sabarre and Judge Cabalona issued 2021)
search warrants against Mayor Espinosa and
Yap who are detainees inside the Baybay Sub-
Provincial Jail, a facility under the control of the O. PROVISIONAL REMEDIES IN CRIMINAL
government. The OCA opined that the issuance CASES
of search warrants to search jail facilities of the (RULE 127)
government can be considered as gross
ignorance of the law for which judges can be
held liable. In Senate Committee Report No. 46, Nature
the Committee on Public Order and Dangerous
Drugs and the Committee on Justice and Human They are those to which parties may resort for the
Rights stated that there is no need to issue preservation or protection of their rights or
search warrants because there is no reasonable interests and for no other purposes during the
expectation of privacy inside Baybay Sub- pendency of the action.
Provincial Jail. Applications should have been
denied because the proper action in this case They are applied to a pending litigation for the
should have been coordination with the jail purpose of securing the judgment or preserving the
guards or the PNP personnel augmented inside status quo; and in some cases, after judgment, for
the jail premises. Is the issuance of a search the purpose of preserving or disposing of the
warrant against an inmate in a government- subject matter. (Cala v. Roldan, G.R. No. L-252, 30
controlled detention facility proper? Mar. 1946)
A: YES. A comprehensive analysis of searches that Availability of Provisional Remedies

may be conducted in a penal institution by
correctional officers and those that may be The provisional remedies in civil actions, insofar as
implemented by law enforcers other than they are applicable, may be availed of in connection
correctional officers in charge of the detention with the civil action deemed instituted with the
facility reveal their manifest differences in terms of criminal action. (Sec. 1, Rule 127, ROC, as amended)
purpose, frequency, and scope.

C2
REMEDIAL LAW
Kinds of Provisional Remedies Available in as such, or by any person in a fiduciary capacity,
Criminal Cases or for a willful violation of a duty;
3. When the accused has concealed, removed or
1. Attachment (Rule 57, ROC, as amended); disposed of his property or is about to do so;
2. Preliminary injunction (Sec. 58, ROC, as and
amended); 4. When the accused resides outside the
3. Receivership (Rule 59, ROC, as amended); Philippines. (Sec. 2, Rule 127, ROC, as amended)
4. Replevin (Rule 60, ROC, as amended); and
5. Support pendente lite (Rule 61, ROC, as 2. Preliminary Injunction
amended)
It is an order of the court to perform or refrain from
1. Attachment performing a particular act or acts.
It is a remedy afforded to the offended party to have 3. Receivership

the property of the accused attached as security for
satisfaction of any judgment that may be recovered It requires the appointment of a receiver aimed at
from the accused. the preservation of and securing the property or
fund subject of the litigation.
It is a provisional remedy by which the property of
an adverse party is taken into legal custody, either 4. Replevin
at the commencement of an action or at any time
thereafter, as a security for the satisfaction of any It is a procedure whereby seized goods may be
judgment that may be recovered by the plaintiff or provisionally restored to their owner pending the
any proper party. (Northern Islands Company, Inc. v. outcome of an action.
Spouses Garcia, G.R. No. 203240, 18 Mar. 2015)
5. Support Pendente Lite
Party who may Apply for Attachment
It is an order against the accused to provide
The plaintiff or any proper party may have the support pendente lite to the child born to the
property of the adverse party attached. (Sec. 1, Rule offended party allegedly because of the crime. The
57, ROC, as amended) Hence, the aggrieved party in application therefor may be filed successively by the
whose behalf the civil aspect of the criminal action offended party, her parents, grandparents or
is prosecuted may apply for the issuance of a writ of guardian and the State in the corresponding
preliminary attachment, he being the person criminal case during its pendency. (Sec. 6, Rule 61,
primarily and directly interested thereby. The ROC, as amended)
prosecutor in the criminal action may make such an
application in behalf of or for the protection of the
interest of the offended party. P. THE RULE ON CYBERCRIME WARRANTS
(A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC)
Cases wherein Attachment is made available
1. When the accused is about to abscond from the Scope and Applicability
Philippines;
2. When the criminal action is based on a claim for This rule sets forth the procedure for the application
money or property embezzled or fraudulently and grant of warrants and related orders involving
misapplied or converted to the use of the the preservation, disclosure, interception, search,
accused who is a public officer, or any officer of seizure, and/or examination, as well as the custody,
a corporation, or an attorney, factor, broker, and destruction of computer data, as provided
agent, or clerk, in the course of his employment

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2

under, R.A. 10175, otherwise known as the Where to Apply for an Application for a Warrant
“Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012.”
It shall be filed by the law enforcement authorities
Venue before any of the designated cybercrime courts of
the province or the city where the offense or any of
The venue for criminal actions for violation of Secs. its elements:
4 (Cybercrime offenses) and 5 (Other offenses) of
R.A. 10175, shall be filed before the designated 1. has been committed;
cybercrime court of the province or city: 2. is being committed;
3. is about to be committed; or
1. Where the offense or any of its elements is 4. where any part of the computer system used is
committed; situated, or where any of the damage caused to
2. Where any part of the computer system used a natural or juridical person took place.
is situated; OR
3. Where any of the damage caused to a natural However, the cybercrime courts in Quezon City, the
or juridical person took place. City of Manila, Makati City, Pasig City, Cebu City,
Iloilo City, Davao City and Cagayan De Oro City shall
Provided, that the court where the criminal action is have the special authority to act on applications and
first filed shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion issue warrants which shall be enforceable
of the other courts. (Sec. 2.1, A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC) nationwide and outside the Philippines.
The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and the An application for a warrant under this Rule for
Philippine National Police (PNP) shall be violation of crimes defined and penalized by the
responsible for the efficient and effective law Revised Penal Code, as amended, and other special
enforcement of the provisions of this Act. The NBI laws, if committed by, through, and with the use of
and the PNP shall organize a cybercrime unit or Information and Communications Technology (ICT)
center manned by special investigators to shall be filed by the law enforcement authorities
exclusively handle cases involving violations of this with the regular or other specialized regional trial
Act. (Sec. 10, R.A. No. 10175) courts, as the case may be, within its territorial
jurisdiction. (Sec. 2.2, A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC)
It must be noted, however, that the phrase “to
exclusively handle cases involving violation of this Effective Period of Warrants
Act” does not confer the NBI Cyber Crime Division
(CCD) and PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group (ACG) the Any warrant issued under this Rule shall only be
sole authority and competence to investigate cases effective for the length of time as determined by the
involving violations of R.A. No. 10975. Rather, the court, which shall not exceed a period of ten (10)
exclusivity phrase provides a limitation on the type days from its issuance. The court issuing the
of cases that may be handled by the NBI-CCD and warrant may, upon motion, extend its effectivity
PNP-ACG, thus, bolstering their status as specialized based only on justifiable reasons for a period not
units. exceeding ten (10) days from the expiration of the
original period. (Sec. 2.5, A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC)
The intent of the law is to create specialized
cybercrime units that will only handle cybercrime Contempt (D-I-S-S-E)
and cyber-related cases. However, this does not
preclude other investigative units or agencies in Failure to timely file the returns for any of the issued
handling cyber-related offenses or those offenses warrants under this Rule or to duly turn over to the
involving electronic evidence. (DOJ Advisory Opinion court's custody any of the items Disclosed,
No. 1, Series of 2018) Intercepted, Searched, Seized, and/or Examined as
prescribed hereunder, shall subject the responsible

C2
REMEDIAL LAW
law enforcement authorities to an action for 2. Relevance and Necessity of the computer data
contempt, which procedures shall be governed by or subscriber's information sought to be
Rule 71 of the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure, disclosed for the purpose of the investigation;
insofar as they are applicable. (Sec. 2.6, A.M. No. 17-
11-03-SC) 3. Names of the Individual or entities whose
computer data or subscriber's information are
Preservation of Computer Data sought to be disclosed, including the names of
the individuals or entities who have control,
The integrity of traffic data and subscriber’s possession or access thereto, if available;
information shall be kept, retained, and preserved
by a service provider for a minimum period of six 4. Particular description of the computer data or
(6) months from the date of the transaction. subscriber's information sought to be
disclosed;
On the other hand, content data shall be preserved
for six (6) months from the date of the receipt 5. Place where the disclosure of computer data or
order from law enforcement authorities requiring subscriber's information is to be enforced, if
its preservation. (Sec. 3.1, A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC) available;
NOTE: Law enforcement authorities requiring its 6. Manner or method by which the disclosure of
preservation may order a one-time extension for the computer data or subscriber's information
another six (6) months: Provided, that once is to be carried out, if available; and
computer data is preserved, transmitted or stored
by a service provider is used as evidence in a case, 7. Other relevant information that will persuade
the receipt by the service provider of a copy of the the court that there is a probable cause to issue
transmittal document to the Office of the Prosecutor a WDCD. (Sec. 4.3, A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC)
shall be deemed a notification to preserve the
computer data until final termination of the case Return on the WDCD
and/or as ordered by the court, as the case may be.
Within 48 hours from implementation OR after the
Warrant to Disclose Computer Data (WDCD) expiration of the effectivity of the WDCD, whichever
(W-I-S-A) comes first, the authorized law enforcement officer
shall submit a return on the WDCD to the court that
1. An order in Writing; issued it and simultaneously turn over the custody
2. Issued in the name of the People of of the disclosed computer data or subscriber's
the Philippines; information thereto.
3. Signed by a judge, upon
application of law enforcement authorities NOTE: It is the duty of the issuing judge to ascertain
(LEA); if the return has been made, and if none, to summon
4. Authorizing the LEA to issue an the law enforcement officer to whom the WDCD was
order to disclose and accordingly, require issued and require him to explain why no return
any person or service provider to disclose was made, without prejudice to any action for
or submit subscriber's information, traffic contempt. (Sec. 4.5, A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC)
data, or relevant data in his/her or its
possession or control. (Sec. 4.2, A.M. No. 17- Law Enforcement Authorities are allowed to
11-03-SC) retain a copy of the disclosed computer data or
subscriber's information subject of the WDCD
Contents of WDCD (Po-RN-N-I-Pa-PLa-M-O) which may be utilized for case build-up or
preliminary investigation purposes, without the
1. The Probable Offense involved; need of any court intervention; Provided, that the

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2

details thereof are kept strictly confidential and that Notice after Filing of Return
the retained copy shall be labelled as such.
Within 30 days from the filing of the return, or, if no
The retained copy shall be turned over upon the return is filed, from the lapse of the 48-hour
filing of a criminal action involving the disclosed period to file the return, the authorized law
computer data or subscriber's information to the enforcement officer has the duty to notify the
court where such action has been instituted, or if no person whose communications or computer data
criminal action has been filed, upon order of the have been intercepted of the activities conducted
issuing court under the procedure set forth in Sec. pursuant to the WICD. If a return has been filed, a
8.2(3) of this Rule. copy of the same shall be attached to the notice. On
the other hand, if no return has been filed, the notice
Upon its turn-over, the retained copy shall always shall state the details of the interception activities,
be kept, destroyed, and/or returned together with including the contents of the intercepted
the computer data or subscriber's information that communication or computer data.
was originally turned over to the issuing court. (Sec.
4.5, A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC) Within 10 days from notice, the person whose
communications or computer data have been
Warrant to Intercept Computer Data (WICD) intercepted may challenge, by motion, the legality of
(W-I-S-A-L-Re-M-S) the interception before the issuing court. (Sec. 5.6,
A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC)
It is an order:
Warrant to Search, Seize and Examine Computer
1. In Writing; Data (WSSECD)
2. Issued in the name of the People of the
Philippines; It is an order in writing issued in the name of the
3. Signed by a judge, upon application of law People of the Philippines, signed by a judge, upon
enforcement authorities; application of law enforcement authorities,
4. Authorizing the latter to carry out any or all of authorizing the latter to search the particular place
the following activities: for items to be seized and/or examined. (Sec. 6.1,
A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC)
a. Listening to;
b. Recording; Contents for Application of WSSECD
c. Monitoring; or
d. Surveillance of the content of The verified application for a WSSECD, as well as the
communications, including procuring of supporting affidavits, shall state the essential facts
the content of computer data, either similar to those in Sec. 4.3 of this Rule, except that
directly, through access and use of a the subject matter is the computer data sought to be
computer system or indirectly, through the searched, seized, and examined, and all other items
use of electronic eavesdropping or tapping related thereto.
devices, at the same time that the
communication is occurring. (Sec. 5.2, A.M. In addition, the application shall contain:
17-11-03-SC)
1. An explanation of the search and seizure
NOTE: The verified application for a WICD, as well strategy to be implemented;
as the supporting affidavits, shall state the essential 2. Including a projection of whether or not an off-
facts similar to those in Section 4.3 of this Rule, site or on-site search will be conducted, taking
except that the subject matter is the communication into account the nature of the computer data
or computer data sought to be intercepted. (Sec. 5.3, involved, the computer or computer system's
A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC) security features, and/or other relevant

C2
REMEDIAL LAW
circumstances, if such information is available. 2. The said activities are fully disclosed, and the
(Sec. 6.2, A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC) foregoing relation duly explained in the initial
return.
Issuance of WSSECD
LEAs may order any person, who has knowledge
If the judge is satisfied that there is probable cause about the functioning of the computer system and
to believe that the facts upon which the application the measures to protect and preserve the computer
for WSSECD exists, he shall issue the WSSECD. (Sec. data therein, to provide, as is reasonable, the
6.3, A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC) necessary information to enable the undertaking of
the search, seizure and examination. (Sec. 6.5, A.M.
Off-site and On-site Principle No. 17-11-03-SC)
Law enforcement authorities shall, if the Initial Return of the WSSECD

circumstances so allow, endeavor to first make a
forensic image of the computer data on-site as well Within 10 days from the issuance of the WSSECD,
as limit their search to the place specified in the the authorized law enforcement officers shall
warrant. submit an initial return that contains the following
information:
Otherwise, an off-site search may be conducted,
provided that a forensic image is, nevertheless, 1. A list of all the items that were seized, with a
made, and that the reasons for the said search are detailed identification of:
stated in the initial return. (Sec. 6.4, A.M. No. 17-11-
03-SC) a. the devices of the computer system seized,
including the name, make, brand, serial
Return of Items seized Off-site numbers, or any other mode of
identification, if available; and
A person whose computer devices or computer
system have been searched and seized off-site may, b. the hash value of the computer data and/or
upon motion, seek the return of the said items from the seized computer device or computer
the court issuing the WSSECD: system containing such data.
Provided, that a forensic image of the computer data 2. A statement on whether a forensic image of the
subject of the WSSECD has already been made. The computer data was made on-site, and if not, the
court may grant the motion upon its determination reasons for making the forensic image off-site;
that no lawful ground exists to otherwise withhold
the return of such items to him. (Sec. 6.4, A.M. No. 17- 3. A statement on whether the search was
11-03-SC) conducted on-site, and if not, the reasons for
conducting the search and seizure off-site;
Allowable Activities during the Implementation
of the WSSECD 4. A statement on whether interception was
conducted during the implementation of the
The interception of communications and computer WSSECD, together with:
data may be conducted during the implementation
of the WSSECD, provided that: a. A detailed identification of all the
interception activities that were
1. The interception activities shall only be limited conducted;
to communications and computer data that are
reasonably related to the subject matter of the b. The hash value/s of the communications
WSSECD; and or computer data intercepted; and

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2

c. An explanation of the said items' return was made, without prejudice to any action
reasonable relation to the computer data for contempt. (Sec. 6.8, A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC)
subject of the WSSECD.
Warrant to Examine Computer Data (WECD)
5. List of all the actions taken to enforce the
WSSECD, from the time the law enforcement It is issued upon acquiring possession of a computer
officers reached the place to be seized until they device or computer system via a lawful warrantless
left the premises with the seized items and arrest, or by any other lawful method, BUT law
reached the place where the items seized were enforcement authorities shall first apply for a
stored and secured for examination; and warrant (WECD) before searching the said
computer device or computer system for the
6. A reasonable estimation of how long the purpose of obtaining for forensic examination the
examination of the items seized will be computer data contained therein.
concluded and the justification therefor.
The verified application for a WECD, as well as the
NOTE: It is the duty of the issuing judge to ascertain supporting affidavits, shall state the essential facts
if the initial return has been made, and if none, to similar to those in Sec. 4.3 of this Rule, except that
summon the law enforcement authority to whom the subject matter is the computer data sought to be
the WSSECD was issued and require him to explain examined. In addition, the application shall disclose
why no initial return was made, without prejudice the circumstances surrounding the lawful
to any action for contempt. (Sec. 6.6, A.M. No. 17-11- acquisition of the computer device or computer
03-SC) system containing the said computer data. (Sec. 6.9,
A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC)
Period to examine and Order for Return
Deposit and Custody of the Computer Data
After the initial return is submitted to the court
pursuant to the WSSECD, the court shall issue an Upon the filing of the return for a WDCD or WICD, or
order fixing the period to conclude the examination the final return for a WSSECD or WECD, all
of all the items seized, which period may be computer data subject thereof shall be
extended not exceeding thirty (30) days, upon simultaneously deposited in a sealed package with
motion, for justifiable reasons. (Sec. 6.7, A.M. No. 17- the same court that issued the warrant. It shall be
11-03-SC) accompanied by a complete and verified inventory
of all the other items seized in relation thereto, and
Final Return of the WSSECD by the affidavit of the duly authorized law
enforcement officer containing:
Within 48 hours after the expiration of the period
to examine as provided under Sec. 6.7 of this Rule, 1. The date and time of the disclosure,
the authorized law enforcement officers shall interception, search, seizure, and/or
submit a final return on the WSSECD to the court examination of the computer data, as the
that issued it, and simultaneously turn-over the case may be. If the examiner or analyst has
custody of the seized computer data, as well as all recorded his/her examination, the
other items seized and/or the communications or recording shall also be deposited with the
computer data intercepted in relation thereto, court in a sealed package and stated in the
following the procedure under Sec. 7.1 of this Rule. affidavit;
It is the duty of the issuing judge to ascertain if the 2. The particulars of the subject computer
final return has been made, and if none, to summon data, including its hash value;
the law enforcement officer to whom the WSSECD
was issued and require him to explain why no final

C2
REMEDIAL LAW
3. The manner by which the computer data The motion for the purpose shall state:
was obtained;
1. The relevance of the computer data sought
4. Detailed identification of all items seized to be opened, replayed, revealed, or used
in relation to the subject computer data, as evidence; and
including the computer device containing
such data and/or other parts of the 2. The names of the persons who will be
computer system seized, indicating the allowed to have access thereto, if the
name, make, brand, serial numbers, or any motion is granted.
other mode of identification, if available;
The motion shall further include proof of service of
5. The names and positions of the law copies sent to the person or persons whose
enforcement authorities who had access to computer data is the subject of the motion. The said
the computer data from the time of its person or persons shall be given 10 days from
seizure until the termination of the receipt of notice thereof to file a comment, after
examination but prior to depositing it with which the court shall rule on the motion, unless it
the court, and the names of officers who finds it necessary to conduct a clarificatory hearing
will be delivering the seized items to the for the purpose. (Sec. 7.3, A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC)
court;
Destruction and Return of Computer Data in the
6. The name of the law enforcement officer Custody of the Court
who may be allowed access to the
deposited data. When the said officer dies, Upon motion and due hearing, the court may, for
resigns of severs tie with the office, his/her justifiable reasons, order the complete or partial
successor may, upon motion, be granted destruction, or the return to its lawful owner or
access to the deposit; and possessor, of the computer data or any of the related
items turned over to its custody.
7. A certification that no duplicates or copies
of the whole or any part thereof have been The court may, motu proprio, and upon written
made, or if made, all such duplicates or notice to all the parties concerned, order the
copies are included in the sealed package complete or partial destruction, or return to its
deposited, except for the copy retained by lawful owner or possessor, of the computer data or
law enforcement authorities pursuant to any of the related items turned over to its custody if
Sec. 4.5(3) of this Rule. no preliminary investigation or case involving these
items has been instituted after 31 days from their
The return on the warrant shall be filed and kept by deposit, or if preliminary investigation has been so
the custodian of the logbook on search warrants instituted within this period, upon finality of the
who shall enter therein the date of the return, the prosecutor's resolution finding lack of probable
description of the sealed package deposited, the cause. In its sound discretion, the court may conduct
name of the affiant, and other actions of the judge. a clarificatory hearing to further determine if there
(Sec. 7.1, A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC) is no reasonable opposition to the items'
destruction or return.
Access to and Use of Computer Data
If the court finds the destruction or return of
The package containing the computer data so disclosed computer data or subscriber's
deposited under Sec. 7.1 of this Rule shall not be information subject of a WDCD to be justified under
opened, or the recordings replayed, or its contents this Section, it shall first issue an order directing the
revealed, or, in any manner, used as evidence, law enforcement authorities to turnover the
except upon motion duly granted by the court. retained copy thereof as described in Sec. 4.5(3) of

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2

this Rule. Upon its turn-over, the retained copy shall
be simultaneously destroyed or returned to its
lawful owner or possessor together with the
computer data or subscriber's information that was
originally turned over to the issuing court. (Sec. 8.2,
A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC)
Manner of Destruction of Computer Data
The destruction of computer data and related items,

if so, allowed under Sec. 8.2 of this Rule, shall be
made in the presence of:
1. The Branch Clerk-of-Court, or in his/her

absence, in the presence of any other person
duly designated by the court to witness the
same;
2. The accused or the person/s from whom such

items were seized, or his/her representative or
counsel;
3. The law enforcement officer allowed access to
such items as indicated in the inventory, or
his/her duly authorized representative, may
also be allowed to witness the said activity;
Provided, that they appear during the
scheduled date of destruction upon written
notice to them by the Branch Clerk-of-Court at
least three (3) days prior to the
aforementioned date.
Within 24 hours from the destruction of the

computer data, the Branch Clerk-of-Court or the
witness duly designated by the court shall issue a
sworn certification as to the fact of destruction and
file the said certificate with the same court.
The storage device, or other items turned over to

the court's custody, shall be destroyed by shredding,
drilling of four holes through the device, prying the
platters apart, or other means in accordance with
international standards that will sufficiently make it
inoperable. (Sec. 8.3, A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC)

C2
REMEDIAL LAW
Procedure for Inquest Proceedings
Commences by receipt of
complaint by an inquest officer
from the law enforcer.
Inquest officer shall

determine if the arrest is
valid.
If the arrest is valid, detainee shall be asked if the detainee

If not valid, he shall proceed with the inquest but shall
wants a new preliminary investigation, and if he does, he
recommend the release to be approved by the city or
shall be made to execute a waiver of the provision of Art.
provincial prosecutor.
125 of the RPC.
Otherwise, Inquest proper shall be conducted.
When the recommendation for release is approved,

but the evidence warrants the conduct of a
preliminary investigation, the said order shall be
served on the officer having custody of the detainee
and shall direct the said officer to serve upon the If the inquest officer finds probable cause, he must prepare
detainee the subpoena or notice of preliminary a complaint or information with recommendation to be
investigation. filed in court, otherwise recommend the release of person.
(Part II, Manual for Prosecutors).

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
VIII. EVIDENCE
evidence preponderates, the party having the 2. RELEVANCE OF EVIDENCE
burden of proof loses. The equipoise rule finds AND COLLATERAL MATTERS
application if the inculpatory facts and
circumstances are capable of two or more Relevance of Evidence
explanations. (Arriola v. People, G.R. No. 199975, 24
Feb. 2020, J. Hernando) Evidence must have such a relation to the fact in
issue as to induce belief in its existence or non-
existence. (Sec. 4, Rule 128, ROC, as amended)
B. ADMISSIBILITY OF EVIDENCE
(RULE 128) The court will admit only evidence which is relevant
to the issue. (Sec. 3, Rule 128, ROC, as amended)
1. REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY Collateral Matters

OF EVIDENCE
Collateral matters refer to matters other than the
1. The evidence is relevant to the issue; and fact in issue.
NOTE: It is relevant if it has such a relation to GR: Evidence on collateral matters is not allowed.
the fact in issue as to induce belief in its
existence or non-existence. (Sec. 4, Rule 128, XPN: It is allowed when it tends in any reasonable
ROC, as amended) degree to establish the probability or improbability
of the fact in issue. (Sec. 4, Rule 128, ROC, as
2. The evidence is competent. amended)
Illustration: Motive of a person or his reputation is
NOTE: The evidence is competent when it is not a matter that may be considered collateral to the
excluded by the Constitution, the law, or the subject of controversy.
Rules of Court. (Sec. 3, Rule 128, ROC, as
amended). Competency is determined by the 3. MULTIPLE ADMISSIBILITY
prevailing exclusionary rules of evidence.
Where the evidence is relevant and competent for
No evidence is admissible unless it is relevant. two or more purposes, such evidence should be
However, relevancy alone does not make the admitted for any or all purposes for which it is
evidence admissible. An item of evidence may be offered provided it satisfies all the requirements of
relevant but not admissible. It is not admissible law for its admissibility. (Regalado, 2008) (2005
because, although relevant, it may be incompetent, BAR)
i.e., it is excluded by law or by a particular rule or by
both. Illustration: Depending upon circumstances, the
declaration of a dying person may be admissible for
Neither is evidence admissible merely because it is two or more purposes. It may be offered as a dying
competent. Although evidence is competent, it may declaration under Sec. 38, Rule 130, ROC, as
still be inadmissible if it is not relevant. The formula amended, and as part of res gestae under Sec. 44,
for admissibility is a simple one. To be admissible, Rule 130, ROC, as amended. The statement by a bus
the evidence must be both relevant and competent. driver immediately after the collision that he dozed
(Riano, 2022) off in the wheel while driving may be admissible as
an admission under Sec. 27, Rule 130, ROC, as
amended and/or as part of res gestae pursuant to
Sec. 44, Rule 130, ROC, as amended.

C2
REMEDIAL LAW
4. CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY 6. DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
Where the evidence at the time of its offer appears Direct Evidence
to be immaterial or irrelevant unless it is connected
with the other facts to be subsequently proved, such That which proves a fact without the need to make
evidence may be received on condition that the an inference from another fact. (Riano, 2019)
other facts will be proved thereafter, otherwise the
evidence already given will be stricken out. Circumstantial Evidence or Indirect Evidence
(Regalado, 2008) (2011 BAR)
That which proves a fact in issue indirectly through
Conditional – connotes tentative or temporary an inference which the fact finder draws from the
evidence. (Peralta & Peralta, 2020) evidence established. (People v. Matito, G.R. No.
144405, 24 Feb. 2004)
5. CURATIVE ADMISSIBILITY
It may happen that no prosecution witness has
It allows a party to introduce otherwise actually seen the commission of the crime. However,
inadmissible evidence to answer the opposing jurisprudence tells us that direct evidence of the
party’s previous introduction of inadmissible crime is not the only matrix from which a trial court
evidence. (Riano, 2019) may draw its conclusion and finding of guilt. The
rules on evidence allow a trial court to rely on
Curative – when it is intended to receive circumstantial evidence to support its conclusion of
inadmissible evidence from a party to neutralize a guilt.
previously accepted inadmissible evidence from the
other party. (Peralta & Peralta, 2020) Illustration: The prosecution presented
corroborating evidence which constitute an
Illustration: In an action for damages arising from unbroken chain leading to the inevitable conclusion
car accident, the plaintiff, despite objection by the that accused is guilty of killing the victim. For
defendant, was allowed to introduce evidence to instance, the presence of gunpowder nitrates on
show that, on several occasions, the defendant, in accused after a paraffin test; the firearm used in the
the past, had injured pedestrians because of killing which could either be a .38 caliber or 9 mm
negligence. Following the concept of curative pistol details with the testimony of a witness that he
admissibility, the court may be asked to give the saw accused carrying a .38 caliber short firearm
defendant the chance to contradict or explain his which was later found to have been recently fired;
alleged past acts and to show evidence of his past and the absence of gunpowder nitrates on the hands
acts of diligence to counteract the prejudice which of the victim after a paraffin test which belies
the improperly admitted evidence may have caused. accused’s claim that he was shot by the victim or
(Riano, 2019) that the latter exchanged fire with a police office.
(People v. Alawig, G.R. No. 187731, 13 Sept. 2013)
Thus, a party who first introduces either irrelevant
or incompetent evidence into the trial cannot Difference between Direct Evidence and
complain of the subsequent admission of similar Circumstantial Evidence
evidence from the adverse party relating to the
subject matter. (Commonwealth v. Alexander, 5 The difference involves a relationship of the fact
S.W.rd 104, 26 Aug. 1999) Conversely, the doctrine inferred to the facts that constitute the offense.
should not be invoked where evidence was properly Their difference does not relate to the probative
admitted. value of the evidence. Direct evidence proves a
challenged fact without drawing any inference.
Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand,
indirectly proves a fact in issue, such that the fact-

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2
VIII. EVIDENCE
finder must draw an inference or reason from charged may also be proved by circumstantial
circumstantial evidence. (Planteras v. People, G.R. evidence, sometimes referred to as indirect or
No. 238889, 03 Oct. 2018) presumptive evidence. The circumstantial evidence
proven by the prosecution sufficiently established
Q: X and Y were charged with Robbery with that appellant committed the offense charged.
Homicide. The prosecution established that on (People v. Papillero, G.R. No. 229087, 17 June 2020)
the day of the incident, J and L were having a
conversation in their house when two (2) Cumulative Evidence and Corroborative
persons asked them where the house of the Evidence
victim was located. J and L, in response, pointed
to the house of their neighbor. Later, J and L Cumulative evidence refers to evidence of the same
heard someone shouting and moaning inside kind and character as that already given and that
the house of the victim, who was their neighbor. tends to prove the same proposition. (Wyne v.
J went out of the house and saw somebody Newman, 75 Va., 811, 817)
waving a flashlight inside the victim's house, as
if looking for something. This prompted him to Corroborative evidence refers to evidence that is
call L and V. A few minutes later, a man wearing supplementary to that already given, tending to
a black t-shirt and carrying a backpack, followed strengthen or confirm it. It is additional evidence of
by another man wearing a green shirt and a different character to the same point. (Edwards v.
carrying a pair of shoes, came out of the house of Edwards, Tenn. App., 501 S.W. 2d 283. 289)
the victim. J and L immediately ran after them
unto the basketball court and saw that the two An extrajudicial confession made by an accused
were already on board a black Yamaha shall not be sufficient ground for conviction, unless
motorcycle. Luckily, V arrived with the barangay corroborated by evidence of corpus delicti. (Sec. 3,
tanod and immediately accosted the two men. J, Rule 133, ROC, as amended)
L, and V recognized the two as the same persons
who asked them earlier about the location of NOTE: Corroborative testimony is not always
Laurora’s house. The man wearing black shirt required.
was identified as the accused-appellant, while
the one wearing green shirt was identified as Y. The law does not require that the testimony of a
Recovered from their possession were personal single witness must be corroborated except where
properties belonging to the victim. When expressly mandated. The weight and sufficiency of
Accused-appellant was further frisked, a evidence is determined not by the number of the
screwdriver was found in his possession. V then witnesses presented but by the credibility, nature,
asked the victim’s laundrywoman to check on and quality of the testimony. (People v. Gapasan, G.R.
the victim. When she returned, she told them No. 110812, 29 Mar. 1995)
that the victim was killed. The laundrywoman
also identified that the green shirt worn by Y 7. POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EVIDENCE
belongs to the victim. Is the RTC correct in
convicting the accused based on circumstantial Positive Evidence
evidence?
Exists when the witness affirms on the stand that a
A: YES. The lack or absence of direct evidence does certain state of facts does exist or that a certain
not necessarily mean that the guilt of the accused event happened. (Riano, 2022)
cannot be proved by evidence other than direct
evidence. Direct evidence is not the sole means of
establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt,
because Circumstantial evidence, if sufficient, can
supplant the absence of direct evidence. The crime

C2
REMEDIAL LAW
Negative Evidence words, competence refers to a witness’ eligibility to
take the stand and testify. (Riano, 2022)
Exists when the witness states that an event did not
occur or that the state of facts alleged to exist does Credibility
not actually exist. (Riano, 2019)
The worthiness of belief, that quality which renders
Illustration: The testimony of W that he saw P fire a witness worthy of belief. (Black’s Law Dictionary,
a gun at the victim is positive evidence. The 5th Ed., p.330)
testimony of W that he could not have fired the gun
because he was not armed during the incident is NOTE: Admissible evidence is not necessarily
negative evidence. (Riano, 2022) credible evidence. Admissibility does not guarantee
credibility. (Riano, 2019)
Greater probative value is given to evidence that is
positive in nature than that which is accorded to In every proceeding, the credibility of the witness is
evidence that is negative in character. (Republic v. always an issue because it has the inherent
Bautista, G.R. No. 169801, 11 Sept. 2007) tendency to prove or disprove the truthfulness of
his assertion and, consequently, the probative value
NOTE: When a witness declares of his personal of the proffered evidence. (Riano, 2022)
knowledge that a fact did not take place, that is
actually positive testimony since it is an affirmation Findings and conclusions of the trial court on the
of the truth of a negative fact. (Regalado, 2008) credibility of witnesses are entitled to great respect
because they have the advantage of observing the
Denial as Negative Evidence demeanor of witnesses as they testify. (Riano, 2019)
Denial is considered by the Court to be a very weak When affirmed by the appellate court, it is accorded
form of defense and can never overcome an full weight and credit as well as great respect, if not
affirmative or positive testimony particularly when conclusive effect, except when facts and
the latter comes from the mouth of a credible circumstances of weight and influence were
witness. (People v. Mendoza, G.R. No. 146693-94, 31 overlooked or the significance of which was
July 2003) misappreciated or misinterpreted by the lower
courts. (Riano, 2019)
The defense of denial is viewed with disfavor for
being inherently weak. To be worthy of Trial court’s assignment of probative value to
consideration at all, denials should be substantiated witnesses’ testimonies will not be disturbed except
by clear and convincing evidence. (Riano, 2019) when significant matters were overlooked, because
it “has the opportunity to observe the demeanor of
8. COMPETENT AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCE a witness on the stand.” The trial court’s findings
acquire even greater weight once affirmed on
Competent Evidence appeal. (People v. XXX and YYY, G.R. No. 225288, 28
June 2021, J. Hernando)
One that is not excluded by law in a particular case.
Competence, in relation to evidence in general,
refers to eligibility of an evidence to be received as
such. The test of competence is the Constitution, the
laws or the rules.
When applied to a witness, the term competent

refers to the qualifications of the witness. In other

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2
VIII. EVIDENCE
be known to judges because of their
C. JUDICIAL NOTICE AND JUDICIAL functions. (Sec. 2, Rule 129, ROC, as
ADMISSIONS (RULE 129) amended)
Mandatory Judicial Notice

Facts that Need NOT be Proved
When the matter is subject to a mandatory judicial
1. Those of which the courts may take judicial notice, no motion or hearing is necessary for the
notice; (Rule 129, ROC, as amended) court may take judicial notice of a fact.
2. Those that are judicially admitted; (Rule 129,
ROC, as amended) When Judicial Notice is Mandatory
3. Those that are conclusively presumed; (Rule (E-PO-L-A-P-O-L-M-G)
131, ROC, as amended)
4. Those that are disputably presumed but 1. Existence and territorial extent of states;
uncontradicted; (Rule 131, ROC, as amended) 2. Political history, forms of government and
5. Immaterial allegations; symbols of nationality;
6. Facts admitted or not denied provided they 3. Law of nations;
have been sufficiently alleged; (Sec. 11, Rule 8, 4. Admiralty and maritime courts of the world and
ROC, as amended) their seals;
7. Res Ipsa Loquitur; and 5. Political constitution and history of the
8. Admissions by adverse party. (Rule 26, ROC, as Philippines;
amended) 6. Official acts of legislative, executive and judicial
departments of the National Government of the
Judicial Notice Philippines;
7. Laws of nature;
It is the cognizance of certain facts which judges 8. Measure of time; and
may properly take and act upon without proof 9. Geographical divisions. (Sec. 1, Rule 129, ROC, as
because they are supposed to be known to them. It amended)
is based on considerations of expediency and
convenience. It displaces evidence, being equivalent NOTE: The list here is exclusive.
to proof. (Regalado, 2008)
Under the amended rule, only the official acts of
Function of Judicial Notice executive, legislative, and judicial departments of
the National Government are subject of mandatory
It dispenses the presentation of evidence and fulfills judicial notice. Hence, those of local government
the purpose for which the evidence is designed to units (LGUs) are generally not subject to mandatory
fulfill. Its function is to abbreviate litigation by judicial notice. For instance, ordinances of LGUs are
admission of matters that needs no evidence not subject to mandatory judicial notice, even if the
because judicial notice is a substitute for formal charter of an LGU requires courts sitting in said LGU
proof of a matter by evidence. (Riano, 2019) to take judicial notice thereof. (Riano, 2022)
Kinds of judicial notice When Judicial Notice of a Fact may be taken
1. Mandatory – insofar as those matters During the pre-trial and the trial, the court, motu
enumerated under Sec. 1, Rule 129; and proprio or upon motion, shall hear the parties on the
propriety of taking judicial notice of any matter.
2. Discretionary – on matters which are of
public knowledge, or are capable of Before judgment or on appeal, the court, motu
unquestionable demonstration, or ought to proprio or upon motion, may take judicial notice of

C2
C2
VIII. EVIDENCE
constituting highway commerce and notorious 9. Moral damages and death indemnity require
facts concerning the same. (Banatao v. Tuliao, neither pleading nor evidence simply because
G.R. No. 12264, 23 Sept. 1918) death through crime always occasions moral
2. The financial problem is a factor that beset the sufferings on the part of the victim’s heirs.
sugar industry; that there is crisis in the sugar (Barut v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No.
industry. (Hilado v. Leogardo, Jr., G.R. No. L- 167454, 24 Sept. 2014)
65863, 11 June 1986)
Matters NOT Proper Subject of Judicial Notice
3. The general increase in rentals of real estate
especially of business establishments. 1. GR: Courts are not mandated to take judicial
(Commander Realty, Inc. v. CA, G.R. No. L-77227, notice of the practice of banks in conducting
29 Nov. 1988) background checks on borrowers and sureties.
4. The reality that, especially in local elections, XPN: They nevertheless may do so under the
political rivals or operators benefited from the rule on discretionary judicial notice
usually belated decisions by COMELEC on Discretionary Judicial Notice. (Solidbank
petitions to cancel or deny due course to CoCs Corporation v. Mindanao Ferroalloy Corp., G.R.
of potential nuisance candidates. (Dela Cruz v. No. 153535, 28 July 2005)
Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 192221, 13
Nov. 2012) 2. GR: Courts are not authorized to take judicial
notice of the contents of the records of other
5. How rapists are not deterred by the presence of cases even when said cases have been tried or
people nearby, such as the members of their are pending in the same court or before the
own family inside the same room, with the same judge.
likelihood of being discovered, since lust
respects no time, locale or circumstance. XPN: They may, however, take judicial notice of
(People of the Philippines v. Neil B. Colorado, G.R. a decision or the facts prevailing in another case
No. 200792, 14 Nov. 2012) sitting in the same court if:
6. The government is and has for many years been a. the parties present them in evidence, absent
financially strapped, to the point that even the any opposition from the other party; or
most essential services have suffered serious b. the court, in its discretion, resolves to do so.
curtailment. (La Bugal-B’Laan Tribal Assoc. v. (Land Bank v. Yatco Agricultural, G.R. No.
Ramos, G.R. No. 127882, 01 Dec. 2004) 172551, 15 Jan. 2014)
7. That Oakwood standoff was widely known and 3. Proprietary acts of GOCCs, e.g., management
was extensively covered by the media made it a contract entered into by the GOCC. (Asian
proper subject of judicial notice. (Magdalo Para Terminals v. Malayan Insurance, G.R. No. 171406, 04
sa Pagbabago v. COMELEC, G.R. No. 190793, 19 Apr. 2011)
June 2012)
4. The assessed value of realty.
8. Senate Report on the Maysilo Estate being an
official act of the legislative department of the 5. Administrative regulation of a statute that is not
National Government of the Philippines. (CLT yet effective.
Realty Development Corporation v. Hi-Grade
Feeds Corporation, et al., G.R. No. 160684, 02 6. No judicial notice is taken of whiplash injury
Sept. 2015) since it is not capable of unquestionable
demonstration and the courts lack the proper

C2
REMEDIAL LAW
medical knowledge to assume this fact. (Dela When the foreign law is part of a published treatise,
Llana v. Biong, G.R. No. 182356, 04 Dec. 2013) periodical, or pamphlet and the writer is recognized
in his profession or calling as expert in the subject,
NOTE: Judicial knowledge is different from the court, may take judicial notice of the treatise
judicial notice. Judicial knowledge is containing the foreign law. (Sec. 48, Rule 130, ROC,
knowledge of the judge. Judicial notice must be as amended)
knowledge of everyone or almost everyone
such that there is no doubt, it is certain, and When a Foreign Law refers to the Law of Nations
that it is well-settled. (Sps. Latip v. Chua, G.R.
No. 177809, 16 Oct. 2009) The Philippines adopts the generally accepted
principles of international law as part of the law of
7. Criminal activities such as robbery and the land. (Sec. 2, Art. II, 1987 Constitution of the
kidnappings are becoming daily fares in the Philippines)
society. (New Sun Valley Homeowner’s
Association v. Sangguniang Barangay, Being part of the law of the land, they are therefore,
Barangay Sun Valley, Parañaque City, G.R. No. technically in the nature of local laws and hence, are
156686, 27 July 2011) subject to mandatory judicial notice under Sec. 1 of
Rule 129. (Riano, 2019)
8. Actual Damages. (Barut v. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 167454, 24 Sept. 2014) Rules regarding Judicial Notice of Municipal or
City Ordinances
Judicial Notice of Foreign Laws (2005, 2011
BAR) 1. MTCs are required to take judicial notice of the
ordinances of the municipality or city wherein
GR: Courts cannot take judicial notice of foreign they sit.
laws. They must be alleged and proved.
2. RTCs must take judicial notice of ordinances in
XPN: When said laws are within the actual force in the municipalities within their
knowledge of the court and such laws are: jurisdiction only:
1. Well and generally known; or a. When expressly authorized to do so by

2. Actually ruled upon in other cases before it; and statute; or
none of the parties claim otherwise. (PCIB v.
Escolin, G.R. Nos. L-27860 and L-27896, 29 Mar. b. In case on appeal before them and wherein
1974) the inferior court took judicial notice of an
ordinance involved in the same case.
Doctrine of Processual Presumption
3. Appellate courts may also take judicial notice of
In international law, the party who wants to have a ordinances not only because the lower courts
foreign law applied to a dispute or case has the took judicial notice thereof but because these
burden of proving the foreign law. Where a foreign are facts capable of unquestionable
law is not pleaded or even if pleaded, is not proved, demonstration. (Riano, 2019)
the presumption is that the foreign law is same as
ours. (ATCI Overseas Corporation v. Echin, G.R. No. Rules on Judicial Notice of Records of another
178551, 11 Oct. 2010) Case previously tried
When Foreign law is part of a Published GR: Courts are not authorized to take judicial notice
Treatise, Periodical, or Pamphlet of the contents of the records of other cases, even
when such cases have been tried or are pending in

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2
C2
C2
VIII. EVIDENCE
When an action or defense is founded upon an A plea of guilty entered by the accused may be later
actionable document, the genuineness and due withdrawn at any time before the judgment of
execution of the same instrument shall be deemed conviction becomes final. Such plea is not
admitted unless it is specifically denied under oath. admissible in evidence against the accused and is
(Sec. 8, Rule 8, ROC, as amended) not even considered as an extrajudicial admission.
Failure to deny the genuineness and due execution Grounds for contradicting Judicial Admissions
of said document amounts to a judicial admission.
(PNB v. Refrigeration Industries, Inc., G.R. No. 1. Upon showing that the admission was made
156178, 20 Jan. 2006) through palpable mistake; or
NOTE: But the failure to deny the genuineness and 2. When it is shown that the imputed admission
due execution of an actionable document does not was not, in fact, made. (Sec. 4, Rule 129, ROC, as
preclude a party from arguing against the document amended)
by evidence of fraud, mistake, compromise,
payment, statute of limitations, estoppel and want NOTE: This argument may be invoked when the
of consideration. He or she is however, precluded statement of a party is taken out of context or that
from arguing that the document is a forgery because his statement was made not in the sense it is made
the genuineness of document is impliedly admitted. to appear by the other party. (Riano, 2019)
(Acabal v. Acabal, G.R. 148376, 31 Mar. 2005)
Remedy of a Party who made a Judicial
Admissions made in Amended Pleadings Admission
Admissions in a pleading which had been 1. In case of written admission – File a Motion to
withdrawn or superseded by an amended pleading, Withdraw such pleading, or any other written
although filed in the same case, are considered as instrument containing such admission; and
extrajudicial admissions. 2. In case of oral admission – The counsel may
move for the exclusion of such admission.
Pleadings that have been amended disappear from
the record, lose their status as pleadings, and cease Admissions in the Pre-trial of Civil Cases
to be judicial admissions. To be utilized as
extrajudicial admission, they must, in order to have Pre-trial is mandatory. One of the purposes of pre-
such effect, be formally offered in evidence. (Ching trial in civil cases is for the court to consider the
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 110844, 27 Apr. 2000) possibility of obtaining stipulations or admissions
of facts. Admissions, therefore, in the pre-trial, as
Rule regarding Self-Serving Evidence well as those made during depositions,
interrogatories or requests for admissions, are all
Self-serving declaration is one that is made by a deemed judicial admissions because they are made
party, out of court and in his favor. It does not in the course of the proceedings of the case. (Riano,
include the testimony he gives as a witness in court. 2019)
(People v. Villarama, G.R. No. 139211, 12 Feb. 2003)
Admissions in the Pre-trial of Criminal Cases
This cannot be said of a party’s testimony in court
made under oath, with full opportunity on the part Admission made by the accused in the pre-trial of a
of the opposing party for cross-examination. (People criminal case is not necessarily admissible against
v. Omictin, G.R. No. 188130, 26 July 2010) him or her. To be admissible, the conditions set
forth by Sec. 2 of Rule 118 must be complied with.
Effect of a Guilty Plea made by the Accused
during his Arraignment later Withdrawn All the agreements or admissions made or entered
during the pre-trial conference shall be:

C2
REMEDIAL LAW
found guilty, the Supreme Court has, on many
1. Reduced in writing; and occasions, relied principally upon physical evidence
2. Signed by the accused and counsel. in ascertaining the truth. Where the physical
evidence on record runs counter to the testimonies
Otherwise, they cannot be used against the accused. of witnesses, the primacy of the physical evidence
(Sec. 2, Rule 118, ROC, as amended) must be upheld. (PO1 Ocampo v. People of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 194129, 15 June 2015)
NOTE: The above rule does not apply to stipulation
of facts made during the trial. In People v. Hernandez NOTE: Documents are object (real) evidence if the
and Silot v. De la Rosa, the Supreme Court ruled: “A purpose is to prove their existence or condition, or
stipulation of facts entered into by the prosecution the nature of the handwriting thereon, or to
and defense counsel during trial in open court is determine the age of the paper used, or the
automatically reduced in writing and contained in blemishes or alterations thereon, as where
the official transcript of proceedings had in court. falsification is alleged. (Regalado, 2008)
The conformity of the accused in the form of his
signature affixed thereto is unnecessary in view of Examples of Object (Real) Evidence
the fact … that an attorney who is employed to
manage a party’s conduct of a lawsuit … has prima 1. Any article or object which may be known or
facie authority to make relevant admissions by perceived using the senses;
pleadings, by oral or written stipulation … which,
unless allowed to be withdrawn are conclusive.” 2. Examination of the anatomy of a person or of
(Riano, 2022) any substance taken therefrom;
3. Conduct of tests, demonstrations or

D. OBJECT (REAL) EVIDENCE experiments;
(RULE 130, A)
4. Examination of representative portrayals of the
object in question (e.g., maps, diagrams);
Nature of Object (Real) Evidence (2005 BAR)
5. Documents, if the purpose is to prove their
Objects as evidence are those addressed to the existence or condition, or the nature of the
senses of the court. When an object is relevant to the handwriting thereon or to determine the age of
fact in issue, it may be exhibited to, examined or the paper used, or the blemishes or alterations;
viewed by the court. (Sec. 1, Rule 130, ROC, as and (Regalado, 2008)
amended)
6. A person’s appearance, where relevant. (People
It is not limited to the view of an object. It covers the v. Rullepa, G.R. No. 131516, 05 Mar. 2003)
entire range of human senses: hearing, taste, smell,
and touch. (Riano, 2019) Paraffin Test
Physical evidence is a mute, but eloquent A test which can establish the presence or absence
manifestation of truth and it ranks high in our of nitrates or nitrites on the hand, but the test alone
hierarchy of trustworthy evidence- where physical cannot determine whether the source of the nitrates
evidence runs counter to testimonial evidence, the or nitrites was discharge of a firearm.
physical evidence should prevail. (Bank of the
Philippine Islands v. Reyes, G.R. No. 157177, 11 Feb. NOTE: The paraffin test is merely corroborative
2008) evidence, neither proving nor disproving that a
In criminal cases such as murder/homicide or rape, person did indeed fire a gun. The positive or
in which the accused stand to lose their liberty if negative results of the test can be influenced by

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2
VIII. EVIDENCE
certain factors such as the wearing of gloves by the 1. REQUISITES
subject, perspiration of the hands, wind direction,
etc. (People v. Buduhan, G.R. No. 178196, 06 Aug. (ReCo-A-C-O)
2008)
1. It must be Relevant and Competent;
A person who tests positive may have handled one
or more substances with the same positive reaction 2. It must be Authenticated;
for nitrates such as explosives, fireworks, fertilizers,
pharmaceuticals, tobacco and leguminous plants. NOTE: To authenticate the object, it must be
(People v. Cajumocan, G.R. No. 155023, 28 May 2004) shown that the object is the very thing that is
either the subject matter of the lawsuit or the
Polygraph Test (Lie Detector Tests) very one involved to prove an issue in the case.
It is an electromechanical instrument that 3. The authentication must be made by a

simultaneously measures and records certain Competent witness who should identify the
physiological changes in the human body that are object to be the actual thing involved; and
believed to be involuntarily caused by an
examinee’s conscious attempt to deceive the 4. The object must be formally Offered in
questioner. (West’s Legal Thesaurus Dictionary, evidence. (Riano, 2019)
1986)
Purposes of Authentication of Object (Real)
A polygraph test operates on the principle that Evidence
stress causes physiological changes in the body
which can be measured to indicate whether the 1. Prevent the introduction of an object different
subject examination is telling the truth. (Riano, from the one testified about; and
2019) 2. Ensure that there have been no significant
changes in the object’s condition.
Q: Ron was charged with murder for shooting
Carlo. After trial, Ron was found guilty as Circumstances when the Court may refuse the
charged. On appeal, Ron argued that the trial introduction of Object or Real Evidence and rely
court should have acquitted him as his guilt was on Testimonial Evidence alone
not proved beyond reasonable doubt. He argues
that the paraffin test conducted on him 2 days 1. Its exhibition is contrary to public morals or
after he was arrested yielded a negative result. decency;
Hence, he could not have shot Carlo. Is Ron
correct? NOTE: But if the exhibition of such object is
necessary in the interest of justice, it may still
A: NO. While the paraffin test was negative, such fact be exhibited, and the court may exclude the
alone did not ipso facto prove that Ron is innocent. public from such view. Such exhibition may not
A negative paraffin result is not conclusive proof be refused if the indecent or immoral objects
that a person has not fired a gun. It is possible to fire constitute the very basis of the criminal or civil
a gun and yet be negative for nitrates, as when the action. (Moran, 1980)
culprit is wearing gloves or he washes his hands
afterwards. Here, since Ron submitted himself for 2. To require its being viewed in court or in ocular
paraffin testing only two days after the shooting, it inspection would result in delays,
was likely he had already washed his hands inconvenience, or unnecessary expenses which
thoroughly, thus removing all traces of nitrates are out of proportion to the evidentiary value of
therefrom. (People v. Brecinio, G.R. No. 138534, 17 such object;
Mar. 2004)

C2
REMEDIAL LAW
3. Such Object Evidence would be confusing or that the admission as evidence of victim’s wallet
misleading, as when the purpose is to prove the together with its contents, violates his right
former condition of the object and there is no against self-incrimination. Likewise, Thor
preliminary showing that there has been no sought for their exclusion because during the
substantial change in said condition; or custodial investigation, wherein he pointed to
the investigating policemen the place where he
4. The Testimonial or Documentary Evidence hid the victim’s wallet, he was not informed of
already presented clearly portrays the object in his constitutional rights (Miranda rights).
question as to render a view thereof Decide the case.
unnecessary. (Regalado, 2008)
A: The right against self-incrimination does not
Q: In a criminal case for murder, the prosecution apply to the instant case where the evidence sought
offered as evidence, photographs showing the to be excluded is not an incriminating statement but
accused mauling the victim with several of the an object evidence. Infractions on the so-called
latter’s companions. The person who took the “Miranda rights” render inadmissible only the
photograph was not presented as a witness. Be extrajudicial confession or admission made during
that as it may, the prosecution presented the custodial investigation. The admissibility of other
companions of the victim who testified that they evidence is not affected even if obtained or taken in
were the ones in the photographs. The defense the course of custodial investigation. Concededly,
objected to the admissibility of the photographs Thor was not informed of his rights during the
because the person who took the photographs custodial investigation. Neither did he execute a
was not presented as witness. Is the contention written waiver of these rights in accordance with
of the defense tenable? the constitutional prescriptions. Nevertheless, these
constitutional shortcuts do not affect the
A: NO. Photographs, when presented in evidence, admissibility of the victim’s wallet and its contents.
must be identified by the photographer as to its (People v. Malimit, G.R. No. 109775, 14 Nov. 1996)
production and testified as to the circumstances
under which they were produced. The value of this Categories of Object (Real) Evidence for
kind of evidence lies in its being a correct Purposes of Authentication
representation or reproduction of the original, and
its admissibility is determined by its accuracy in 1. Unique objects – Those that have readily
portraying the scene at the time of the crime. identifiable marks (e.g., a caliber 40 gun with
serial number XXX888);
The photographer, however, is not the only witness
who can identify the pictures he has taken. The 2. Objects made unique – Those that are made
correctness of the photograph as a faithful readily identifiable (e.g., a bolo knife with
representation of the object portrayed can be identifying marks on it); and
proved prima facie, either by the testimony of the
person who made it or by other competent 3. Non-unique objects – Those which have no
witnesses who can testify to its exactness and identifying marks and cannot be marked (e.g.,
accuracy, after which the court can admit it subject drops of blood). (Riano, 2019)
to impeachment as to its accuracy. Here, the
photographs are admissible as evidence in as much NOTE: In case of non-unique objects, the proponent
as the correctness thereof was testified to by the of the evidence must establish a chain of custody.
companions of the victim. (Sison v. People, G.R. Nos.
108280-83, 16 Nov. 1995) 2. EXCLUSIONARY RULES
Q: Thor was charged with and convicted of the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide NOTE: Exclusionary rules discussed under this
by the trial court. On his appeal, he asseverates heading are not limited to Object Evidence.

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
warrants that encourage law enforcers to go on identified, the chain of custody of physical evidence
fishing expeditions. (Sec. 3(2), Art. III, 1987 is irrelevant.
Constitution) (2010 BAR)
Since it is called a chain, there must be links to the
Illegally seized evidence is obtained as a direct chain. The links are the people who actually handled
result of the illegal act, whereas the “fruit of the or had custody of the object. Each link must show
poisonous tree” is the indirect result of the same how he received the object, how he handled it to
illegal act. The “fruit of the poisonous tree” is at least prevent substitution and how it was transferred to
once removed from the illegally seized evidence, but another. Each must testify to make the foundation
it is equally inadmissible. The rule is based on the complete.
principle that evidence illegally obtained by the
State should not be used to gain other evidence Links in the Chain of Custody
because the originally illegally obtained evidence
taints all evidence subsequently obtained. (People v. 1. Seizure and marking, if practicable, of the
Alicando, G.R. No. 117487, 12 Dec. 1995) illegal drug recovered from the accused;
2. Turnover of the illegal drug by the
Chain of Custody in relation to Sec. 21 of the apprehending officer to the investigating
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002; officer;
Purpose 3. Turnover by the investigating officer to the
forensic chemist for laboratory examination;
To guaranty the integrity of the physical evidence and
and to prevent the introduction of evidence which is 4. Turnover and submission of the marked illegal
not authentic. Where the exhibit is positively drug by the forensic chemist to court. (People
v. Gayoso, G.R. No. 206590, 27 Mar. 2017)
Procedure to be followed in the custody and handling of seized dangerous drugs (Sec. 21, Art. II of R.A. No.
9165, as amended by R.A. No. 10640)

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2
VIII. EVIDENCE
Apprehending team shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, make a physical inventory and photograph of the
same in the presence of:
1. Accused or the person/s from which such items were confiscated and/or seized;
2. His/her representative or counsel; WITH
3. A representative of the National Prosecution Service (NPS) OR the media; AND
4. Any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy. (People v.
Santos, G.R. No. 243627, 27 Nov. 2019)
The objects seized must be submitted to PDEA for qualitative and quantitative examination within 24 hours from the
confiscation/seizure.
The forensic laboratory examiner is required to issue within 24 hours after receipt of the drugs a certification of the
forensic laboratory examination results which shall be done under oath.
After filing of the criminal case, the court shall, within 72 hours, conduct an ocular inspection and the PDEA shall within
24 hours proceed with the destruction of the same.
Dangerous Drugs Board shall then issue a sworn certification as to the fact of destruction or burning to be submitted to
the court. Also, to be submitted are the representative samples (only minimum quantity) of the substances in the
custody of PDEA.
NOTE: The alleged offender or his/her representative or counsel shall be allowed to personally observe all the
above proceedings. His presence shall NOT constitute an admission of guilt.

C2
REMEDIAL LAW
Strict Compliance with Sec. 21 The physical inventory and photographing of the
drugs seized was not done in the place of arrest, but
Q: Banding was arrested at Mercury Drug Store was done in Camp Karingal, which was impractical
Lagro branch in Quezon City for illegal sale of since it was 17 kilometers car ride away from the
dangerous drugs (Sec. 5, R.A. No. 9165). The place of arrest. The clerical errors and discrepancies
dangerous drugs sachets containing white in the inventory receipt and the chemistry report
crystalline substance were marked by PO2 cannot be dismissed since they cast doubt as to the
Inway with AB-20-09-10. To avoid the on-going origin of the drug seized. (People of the Philippines v.
commotion in the area, the team proceeded to Banding, G.R. No. 2333470, 14 Aug. 2019)
Camp Karingal which is 17 kilometers car ride
away from the place of arrest. In the case of People of the Philippines v. Ramos, the
Supreme Court ruled that the witnesses' absence at
There, physical inventory, and photographing the time of seizure is not a justifiable ground for not
required under Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 9165 was immediately marking the items, since they should
conducted in the presence of Banding, the buy- have at the onset, been present or near the place of
bust team, and a media representative. After the seizure. Since the law requires the apprehending
inventory, PO3 Corona prepared the inventory team to conduct the inventory in front of the
receipt for “a sachet containing marijuana required witnesses and immediately after seizure,
fruiting tops.” This was submitted to the QCPD this necessarily means that, in buy-bust operations,
Crime Laboratory. Banding was later on charged the required witnesses must be present at the time
with violation of Sec. 5 of R.A. No. 9165. Banding of seizure. (G.R. No. 225335, 28 Aug. 2019)
argues that he cannot be convicted due to lapses
in the chain of custody of the drugs seized. Can The phrase “immediately after seizure and
Banding be held criminally liable under Sec. 5 of confiscation” means that the physical inventory and
R.A. No. 9165? photographing of the drugs were intended by the
law to be made immediately after, or at the place of
A: Banding cannot be convicted under Sec. 5 of R.A. apprehension. It is only when the same is not
No. 9165 due to the lapses in the chain of custody practicable that the law allows the inventory and
procedure required under Sec. 21 of the same law. photographing to be done as soon as the buy-bust
Sec. 21 requires strict compliance. The accuracy it team reaches the nearest police station or the
requires goes into the covertness of buy-bust nearest office of the apprehending team/officer.
operation and the very nature of narcotic substance.
Well-entrenched in jurisprudence is the rule that
From the language of Sec. 21, the mandate to the conviction of the accused, must rest, not on the
conduct inventory and take photographs weakness of the defense, but on the strength of the
“immediately after seizure and confiscation” prosecution. Since there is no showing that a proper
necessarily means that these shall be inventory and taking of pictures was done by the
accomplished at the place of arrest. When this is apprehending officers, the Court is left with
impracticable, the Implementing Rules and absolutely no guarantee of the integrity of the
Regulations of R.A. No. 9165 allows for two (2) other sachets other than the self-serving assurances of the
options: at the nearest police station or at the police officers. (People of the Philippines v. Que, G.R.
nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, No. 212994, 31 Jan. 2018)
whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures. To sanction non-compliance, the Citing People v. Que, what is critical in drug cases is
prosecution must prove that the inventory was not the bare conduct of the inventory, marking, and
conducted in either practicable place. photographing. Instead, it is the certainty that the
items allegedly taken from the accused retain their
integrity, even as they make their way from the

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2
VIII. EVIDENCE
accused to an officer effecting the seizure, to an As to the second argument, the supposed
investigating officer to a forensic chemist, and inconsistency regarding the exact time the search
ultimately, to courts where they are introduced as warrant was implemented is, if at all, minor and
evidence. Sec. 21(1)’s requirements are designed to without consequence. As argued by the appellee, the
make the first and second link foolproof. Conducting team had arrived at appellant’s house to implement
the inventory and photographing immediately after the search warrant at 4:30 a.m. The police officers
seizure, exactly where the seizure was done, or at a did not immediately search the residence because
location as practicably close to it, minimizes, if not they still had to wait for the barangay officials and
eliminates, room for adulteration or planting of the media representatives. Such minor
evidence. (People of the Philippines v. Banding, inconsistency does not warrant the reversal of
supra.) appellant's conviction. (Concepcion y Tabor v.
People, G.R. No. 243345, 11 Mar. 2019)
Q: Karlo was charged with Illegal Possession of
Dangerous Drugs. He questions his conviction Integrity and Evidentiary Value of the Seized
by arguing that there are inconsistencies in the Items
testimonies of the witnesses. He argues that the
prosecution failed to establish compliance with The prosecution is not required to elicit testimony
the three-witness rule mandated by R.A. No. from every custodian or from every person who had
9165. Furthermore, Karlo casts doubt on the an opportunity to come in contact with the evidence
validity of the search conducted in that the sought to be admitted. As long as one of the chains
implementation of the search warrant was testifies and his testimony negates the possibility of
documented to begin at 4:30 A.M. while the tampering and that the integrity of the evidence is
seizure of the drugs was made at around 6:30 preserved, his testimony alone is adequate to prove
A.M. Such interval, Karlo claims, gave the police the chain of custody.
officers an opportunity to fabricate evidence
against him. Do the alleged inconsistencies in Failure to strictly comply with rules of procedure,
the testimonies of the witnesses warrant the however, does not ipso facto invalidate or render
reversal of the conviction of Karlo? void the seizure and custody over the items. Minor
deviations from the chain of custody rule Chain of
A: NO. As to the first argument, the fact that Cruz’s Custody Rule are justified when the prosecution is
affidavit neglects to categorically mention the able to show that:
presence of DOJ representative Mendoza during the
search operation does not run counter to his 1. There is justifiable ground for non-compliance;
testimony. The perceived discrepancy neither and
affects the truth of the testimony of the prosecution 2. The integrity and evidentiary value of the
witness nor discredits his positive identification of seized items are properly preserved (People v.
appellant. Besides, apart from the duly signed Dumagay, G.R. No. 216753, 07 Feb. 2018)
Certificate of Inventory and Certificate of orderly
Search, it had already been stipulated and admitted Q: A buy-bust operation was conducted wherein
by the parties that Mendoza was indeed a witness in PO2 Montales was designated as the poseur-
the conduct of the search and inventory of the buyer. The buy-bust team proceeded to Saunar’s
confiscated drugs. For this reason, such stipulation residence. PO2 Montales introduced herself as a
is already a judicial admission of the facts stipulated. buyer of shabu and handed Saunar the marked
Appellant is clearly beyond his bearings in disputing money. After a brief conversation, Saunar went
this judicially admitted fact. What is more, inside the house. She returned moments later
photographs were offered in evidence to prove that “with two (2) transparent plastic sachets
the necessary witnesses, including Mendoza, had containing white crystalline substance.” PO2
been present during the search operation. Montales examined the plastic sachets and gave
the pre-arranged signal by removing her

C2
REMEDIAL LAW
sunglasses. This indicated the consummation of markings as reference. (People v. Salim, G.R. No.
the transaction to the other members of the buy- 208093, 20 Feb. 2017)
bust team. PO2 Montales brought the seized Q: A buy-bust operation was conducted by the
items to the crime laboratory for scientific police where PO1 Aure, as the poseur-buyer,
examination. The contents of the two (2) plastic was accompanied by the informant. The team
sachets weighed 0.0496 grams and 0.0487 proceeded to the whereabouts of Holgado. PO1
grams. They tested positive for shabu. Is Saunar Aure handed Holgado two marked Php 100 bills.
liable even if only a miniscule amount is alleged Holgado called Misarez. Misarez stepped out of
to have been seized from him? the restroom and handed a plastic sachet
containing a white crystalline substance to PO1
A: NO. The prosecution must prove beyond Aure. PO1 Aure examined the sachet’s contents
reasonable doubt that the transaction actually took and took out his cellphone signaling that the sale
place by establishing the following elements: “(1) of drugs had been consummated. The police
the identity of the buyer and the seller, the object operatives then approached PO1 Aure and
and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the apprehended Holgado and Misarez. PO3
thing sold and the payment.” Aside from this, the Abuyme prepared an inventory of the seized
corpus delicti must be presented as evidence in items. PO1 Aure supposedly marked the plastic
court. In cases involving dangerous drugs, “the sachet handed to him by Misarez at the site of
corpus delicti is the dangerous drug itself.” Although the buy-bust operation.
strict compliance with the Chain of Custody Rule
may be excused provided that the integrity and Following their arrest, Holgado and Misarez
evidentiary value of the seized items are preserved, were charged with violating Secs. 5 (Sale of
a more exacting standard is required of law dangerous drugs), 11 (Possession of dangerous
enforcers when only a miniscule amount of drugs), and 12 (Possession of drug
dangerous drugs are alleged to have been seized paraphernalia) of R.A. No. 9165.
from the accused.
RTC found Holgado and Misarez guilty of illegal
In this case, only 0.0496 grams and 0.0487 grams or sale of dangerous drugs and acquitted them of
a total of 0.0983 grams of shabu were allegedly the charges pertaining to Sec. 11 as the drugs
taken from accused-appellant. Such a miniscule supposedly seized were not introduced in
amount of drugs is highly susceptible to tampering evidence. Holgado, was also acquitted of the
and contamination. A careful review of the factual charges relating to Sec. 12 of R.A. No. 9165 as the
findings of the lower courts shows that the paraphernalia to which PO2 Castulo testified to
prosecution failed to discharge its burden of in court were different from those indicated in
preserving the identity and integrity of the the inventory supposedly made. CA affirmed the
dangerous drugs allegedly seized from accused- conviction. Is the presumption of regularity in
appellant. The prosecution failed to establish who the performance of duties applicable in this
held the seized items from the moment they were case?
taken from accused-appellant until they were
brought to the police station. The designated A: The presumption of regularity in the
poseur-buyer, PO2 Montales, did not mention who performance of duties cannot be applied in this case.
took custody of the seized items for safekeeping. Given the flagrant procedural lapses the police
(People v. Saunar, G.R. No. 207396, 09 Aug. 2017) committed in handling the seized shabu and the
obvious evidentiary gaps in the chain of its custody,
Marking after seizure is the starting point in the a presumption of regularity in the performance of
custodial link, thus it is vital that the seized duties cannot be made in this case. The presumption
contrabands are immediately marked because applies when nothing in the record suggests that the
succeeding handlers of the specimen will use the law enforcers deviated from the standard conduct
of official duty required by law; where the official

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2
VIII. EVIDENCE
act is irregular on its face, the presumption cannot (Agustin v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 162571, 15 June
arise. (People of the Philippines v. Holgado, G.R. No. 2005)
207992, 11 Aug. 2014)
DNA is the fundamental building block of a person’s
Q: Addin argued that the prosecution failed to entire genetic make-up. A person’s DNA profile can
establish the identity of the seized “illegal drug” determine his identity. The DNA profile is unique
as it was not proven that the marking of the for each person, except for identical twins.
sachet was done in Addin’s presence, and the Everyone is born with a distinct and genetic
other witnesses required under the rules. Addin blueprint called DNA.
posits that the saving clause of Section 21 of the When a crime is committed, material is collected
IRR of R.A. No. 9165 does not apply since the from the scene of the crime or from the victim’s
prosecution did not have justifiable grounds for body for the suspect’s DNA. This is the evidence
non-compliance and the integrity of the seized sample. The evidence sample is then matched with
“illegal drug” could not be proven. Addin is the reference sample taken from the suspect and the
appealing his conviction for the sale of victim.
dangerous drugs arguing that since the chain of
custody has been broken, his conviction should DNA analysis
be overturned. Is Addin’s claim tenable?
A procedure in which DNA extracted from a
A: YES. It should be reiterated that in the event that biological sample obtained from an individual is
the presence of the essential witnesses was not examined. (Herrera v. Alba, G.R. No. 148220, 15 June
obtained, the prosecution must establish not only 2000)
the reasons for their absence, but also the fact that
serious and sincere efforts were exerted in securing The purpose of DNA testing is to ascertain whether
their presence. Failure to disclose the justification an association exists between the evidence sample
for non-compliance with the requirements and the and the reference sample. The samples collected are
lack of evidence of serious attempts to secure the subjected to various chemical processes to establish
presence of the necessary witnesses result in a their profile. The test may yield three possible
substantial gap in the chain of custody of evidence results:
that shall adversely affect the authenticity of the
prohibited substance presented in court. (People v. 1. The samples are different and therefore
Addin, G.R. No. 223682, 9 Oct. 2019, J. Hernando) must have originated from different sources
(exclusion). This conclusion is absolute and
DNA EVIDENCE requires no further analysis or discussion;
Definition 2. It is not possible to be sure, based on the

results of the test, whether the samples have
DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is a molecule that similar DNA types (inconclusive). This might
encodes the genetic information on all living occur for a variety of reasons including
organisms. A person’s DNA is the same in each cell degradation, contamination, or failure of some
and it does not change throughout a person’s aspect of the protocol. Various parts of the
lifetime; the DNA in a person’s blood is the same as analysis might then be repeated with the same
the DNA found in his saliva, sweat, bone, the root or a different sample, to obtain a more
and shaft of hair, earwax, mucus, urine, skin tissue conclusive result; or
and vaginal or rectal cells. Most importantly,
because of polymorphisms in human genetic 3. The samples are similar and could have
structure, no two individuals have the same DNA, originated from the same source (inclusion). In
with the notable exception of identical twins. such a case, the samples are found to be similar,
the analyst proceeds to determine the statistical

C2
REMEDIAL LAW
significance of the similarity. (People v. Vallejo, Post-conviction DNA Testing
G.R. No. 144656, 09 May 2002)
Post-conviction DNA testing may be available,
Rule on DNA Evidence (A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC) without need of prior court order, to the
prosecution or any person convicted by final and
It shall apply whenever DNA evidence is offered, executory judgment, provided that:
used, or proposed to be offered or used as evidence
in all criminal and civil actions as well as special 1. A biological sample exists;
proceedings. (Sec. 1, A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC) 2. Such sample is relevant to the case; and
3. The testing would probably result in the
Application for DNA Testing Order reversal or modification of the judgment of
conviction. (Sec. 5, A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC) (2012
DNA testing order may be done motu proprio or on BAR)
application of any person having legal interest in the
matter in litigation. Assessment of Probative Value of DNA Evidence
and Admissibility
DNA testing order shall issue after due hearing and
notice to the parties upon showing that: The courts must consider the following standards,
known as the Vallejo Standards, in assessing the
1. A biological sample exists that is relevant to the probative value of DNA evidence: (2009, 2010
case; BAR)
2. The biological sample: a. How the samples were collected;

b. How they were handled;
a. was not previously subjected to the type of c. The possibility of contamination of the samples;
DNA testing now requested; or d. The procedure followed in analyzing the
b. was previously subjected to DNA testing, samples;
but the results may require confirmation e. Whether the proper standards and procedures
for good reasons; were followed in conducting the tests; and
f. The qualification of the analyst who conducted
3. The DNA testing uses a scientifically valid the tests. (People v. Vallejo, G.R. No. 144656, 09
technique; May 2002)
4. The DNA testing has the scientific potential to Rules on Evaluation of Reliability of DNA testing
produce new information that is relevant to the Methodology
proper resolution of the case; and
In assessing the probative value of the DNA
5. The existence of other factors, if any, which the evidence presented, the court shall consider the
court may consider as potentially affecting the following:
accuracy of integrity of the DNA testing.
a. The chain of custody, including how the
NOTE: This Rule shall not preclude a DNA testing, biological samples were collected, how they
without need of a prior court order, at the behest of were handled, and the possibility of
any party, including law enforcement agencies, contamination of the samples;
before a suit or proceeding is commenced. (Sec. 4,
A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC) b. The DNA testing methodology, including the
procedure followed in analyzing the samples,
the advantages and disadvantages of the
procedure, and compliance with the

2023 GOLDEN NOTES
C2
C2
REMEDIAL LAW
not valid, as an ocular inspection is part of the trial. that words were uttered in a particular accent, then
(Regalado, 2008, citing Adan v. Abucejo-Luzano, et. it is object evidence. (Francisco, 1996)
al., A.M. No. MTJ-00-1298, 03 Aug. 2000)
Q: May a private document be offered and
admitted in evidence both as documentary
E. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE evidence and object evidence? (2005 BAR)
(RULE 130, B)
A: YES. A private document may be offered and
admitted in evidence both as documentary evidence
and as object evidence depending on the purpose
1. DEFINITION for which the document is offered. If offered to
prove its existence, conditions or for any purpose
Documents as evidence consist of writings, other than the contents of a document, the same is
recording, photographs, or any material containing considered as object evidence. When the private
letters, words, sounds, numbers, figures, symbols, document is offered as proof of its contents, the
or their equivalent, or other modes of written same is considered as documentary evidence. The
expressions, offered as proof of their contents. document may be offered for both purposes under
Photographs include still pictures, drawings, stored the principle of multiple admissibility. (Riano, 2019)
images, x-ray films, motion picture or videos. (Sec. 2,
Rule 130, ROC, as amended) Requisites for Admissibility
NOTE: Being writing or materials containing modes The requisites for admissibility of documentary
of written expressions do not ipso facto make such evidence are: (R-A-M-O)
materials documentary evidence. For such writings
or materials to be deemed documentary evidence, 1. The document should be Relevant;
the same must be offered as proof of their contents.
(Riano, 2019) 2. The documents should be Authenticated and
proved in the manner provided in the Rules of
Categories of Documentary Evidence Court. Such authentication must be done by a
competent witness;
1. Writings;
2. Recordings; 3. The documents should be identified and
3. Photographs; Marked; and
4. Any other material containing letters, words,
sounds, numbers, figures, symbols or their 4. They should be formally Offered to the court
equivalent; or and shown to the opposing party so that the
5. Other modes of written expression offered as a latter may have the opportunity to object
proof of their contents. thereto. (Ramcar, Inc. v. Hi-Power Marketing,
G.R. No. 157075, 17 July 2006)
NOTE: Photographs include still pictures, drawings,
stored images, x-ray films, motion pictures, or Q: When Linda died, her common-law husband,
videos. (Sec. 2, Rule 130, ROC, as amended) Lito and their alleged daughter, Nes, executed an
extrajudicial partition of Linda’s estate.
Tape recording as Documentary Evidence Thereafter, the siblings of Linda filed an action
for partition of Linda’s estate and annulment of
If a tape recording is played to show that particular titles and damages with the RTC. The RTC
words were uttered, it will constitute documentary dismissed the complaint and ruled that Nes was
evidence. However, if it is played to simply show the illegitimate daughter of the decedent and
Lito based solely on her birth certificate, which

2023 GOLDEN NOTES

2023 Ust Golden Notes Remedial Law 2 601 650

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2023 Ust Golden Notes Remedial Law 2 601 650

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2023 Ust Golden Notes Remedial Law 2 601 650

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

C2

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 586

VII. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Basis of Probable Cause Q: Are facts discovered during surveillance

587 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

VII. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

589 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 590

VII. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Human remains can be a subject of a search Parameters of a Search incident to a Lawful

Exceptions to Search Warrant Requirement Purpose

GR: The procurement of a warrant is required 1. To ensure the officer’s safety;

1. Search incident to lawful arrest;

591 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 592

VII. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

593 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 594

VII. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

595 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 596

VII. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

A: YES. A comprehensive analysis of searches that Availability of Provisional Remedies

597 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

It is a remedy afforded to the offended party to have 3. Receivership

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 598

VII. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

599 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 600

VII. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

601 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

Law enforcement authorities shall, if the Initial Return of the WSSECD

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 602

VII. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

603 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 604

VII. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Manner of Destruction of Computer Data

The destruction of computer data and related items,

1. The Branch Clerk-of-Court, or in his/her

2. The accused or the person/s from whom such

Within 24 hours from the destruction of the

The storage device, or other items turned over to

605 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

Procedure for Inquest Proceedings

Inquest officer shall

If the arrest is valid, detainee shall be asked if the detainee

Otherwise, Inquest proper shall be conducted.

When the recommendation for release is approved,

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 606

1. REQUISITES FOR ADMISSIBILITY Collateral Matters

611 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

4. CONDITIONAL ADMISSIBILITY 6. DIRECT AND CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 612

613 UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS

When applied to a witness, the term competent

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 614

Mandatory Judicial Notice