Monograph Search and Seizure

Monograph Search and Seizure
Search and Seizures

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution provides:
The right of the people to secure their persons, houses, papers and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for whatever purpose
shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall be issue except
upon probable cause to be determined personally by the judge after examination
under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be
seized.
Additionally, section 3(1) of the same article declares:
The privacy of communication and correspondence shall be inviolable except upon
lawful order of the court or when public safety or order requires otherwise as
prescribed by law.
To bolster this rules, Article III, section 3(2) provides:
Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be
inadmissible for any purpose in any proceedings.
Rule 126 Rules on Criminal Procedure, Section 1 provides: Search Warrant is an
order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a
judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal
property described therein and bring it before the court.
A warrant, such a warrant of arrest or a search warrant, merely constitutes a
process.
An application for search warrant is a special criminal process, rather than a criminal
action. The proceeding is not one against any person, but is solely for the
discovery and to get the possession of personal property.
WHAT IS A WARRANT OF ARREST?
> Legal process issued by a competent authority, directing the arrest of a
person or persons upon grounds stated therein
WHEN MAY A WARRANT OF ARREST BE ISSUED?

> If issued by the RTC,
1. Within ten (10) days from the filing of the complaint or information, the
judge shall personally evaluate the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting
evidence.
2. He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on record clearly
fails to establish probable cause.
3. If he finds probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest, or a commitment
order if the accused has already been arrested pursuant to a warrant issued by
the MTC judge who conducted the preliminary investigation or when the
complaint or information was filed pursuant to section 7 of this Rule.
o Pangay v. Ganay modified this rule by providing that investigating judges’ power
to order the arrest of the accused is limited to instances where there is
necessity for placing him in custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice
4. In case of doubt on the existence of probable cause, the judge may
order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within five (5) days from
notice and the issue must be resolved by the court within thirty (30) days from the
filing of the complaint of information.
5. If the warrant of arrest is issued by the MTC and if the preliminary
investigation was conducted by the prosecutor, the same procedure as above is
followed
WHEN IS A WARRANT OF ARREST NOT NECESSARY?

> A warrant of arrest is not necessary in the following instances:
1. When the accused is already in detention issued by the MTC
2. When the accused was arrested by virtue of a lawful arrest without
warrant
3. When the penalty is of a fine only
4. Those covered by a summary procedure
WHAT ARE THE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE FINDING OF PROBABLE

CAUSE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A WARRANT OF ARREST?
> There is a distinction between the objective of determining probable cause
as done by the prosecutor and that done by the judge—the prosecutor
determines it for the purpose of filing the complaint or information; while the
judge determines it for the purpose of issuing a warrant of arrest to determine
whether there is a necessity of placing the accused under immediate custody in
order not to frustrate the ends of justice
> Since the objectives are different, the judge shouldn't rely solely on the report of
the prosecutor in finding probable cause to justify the issuance of warrant of arrest
Scope of Protection
The rights against unreasonable searches and seizures and to the privacy of
communication and correspondence are available to all persons, including aliens,
whether accused of crime or not. Artificial persons, like corporations, are also
entitled to the guaranty, although they may be required to open their books of
accounts for examination by the State in the exercise of the police power or the
power of taxation.
As a rule, their premises may not be search nor may their papers and effects seized
except by virtue of a valid warrant.
The right against unreasonable searches and seizures is personal and may be
invoke only by the persons entitled to it. Therefore, one who is not the owner or
lessee of the premises searched, or who is not an officer of a corporation whose
papers are seized, cannot challenge the validity of the search and seizure.
Requisites of a valid Warrant (Rule 126 of Rules on Criminal Procedure,
Section 4)
1. It must be based upon probable cause.
2. The probable cause must be determined personally by the judge.
3. The determination must be made after examination under oath or affirmation
of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce.
4. It must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or
things to be seized.
Probable cause has been defined as referring to such facts and circumstances
antecedent to the issuance of the warrant that in themselves are sufficient to
induce a cautious man to rely on them and act in pursuance thereof.
Justice Escolin probable cause: such as facts and circumstances which
would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an
offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with
the offense are in the place sought to be searched. Burgos v Chief of Staff
And when the law speaks of facts, the reference is to facts, data, or information
personally known to the applicant and the witnesses he may present.
Absent the element of personal knowledge by the applicant or witnesses the warrant
(nullified)
Determination of Probable Cause- Made personally by the judge. Collector v
Villaluz, this power is derived by the judge directly from the self-executing provisions
of Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution and therefore may not be limited, much
less withdrawn, by the legislature. The word judge is interpreted in the generic sense
and includes judges of all levels.
In Ho v People, The SC distinguished between the objectives of the prosecutor and
the judge in determining the existence of probable cause. The prosecutor
determines whether there is a reasonable ground to believe that the accused is
guilty and should be held for trial while the judge determines if a warrant of arrest
should be issued to the place the accused in immediate custody so as not to
frustrate the ends of justice.
Examination of Applicant
Rule 126, Section 5 examination of complainant, the judge must, before issuing the
warrant, personally examine the form of searching questions and answers, in writing
and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may produce on facts
personally known to them and attached to the record their sworn statements,
together with the affidavits submitted.
The evidence offered by the complainant and his witnesses should be based on their
own personal knowledge and not a mere information or belief.
Particularity of Description
The constitution requires that the place to be searched or the persons or things to be
described with such particularity as to enable the person serving the warrant to
identify them. Failure to this requirement may result in erroneous or, worse, arbitrary
enforcement of the warrant.
General warrant is considered as null and void (without specific indication that they
were being use )
Properties Subject to Seizure
Under Rule 126, Section 3, of the Rule of Court provides: a search warrant may
be issued for the search and seizure of personal property.
1. Subject of the offense
2. Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of the offense; or
3. Used or intended to be used as the means of committing an offense.
As a general rule: only personal properties described in the search warrant
may be seized by the authorities.
Admissibility of Illegally Seized Evidence
Articles illegally seized are not admissible as evidence, pursuant to the doctrine
originally announced in Stonehill v Diokno. The rule has been constitutionally
affirmed in Art. III, Sec. 3(2) which provides that such evidence shall be inadmissible
for any purpose in any proceeding. Such evidence is the fruit of poisonous tree.

Monograph Search and Seizure

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Monograph Search and Seizure

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Monograph Search and Seizure

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Monograph Search and Seizure

Search and Seizures

WHEN MAY A WARRANT OF ARREST BE ISSUED?

WHEN IS A WARRANT OF ARREST NOT NECESSARY?

WHAT ARE THE PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE FINDING OF PROBABLE

You might also like