Due process started as the observance of laid down principles? Why?

How and when did this

change/when did due process included procedural and substantial?

Due process originated as the adherence to established legal principles, ensuring fairness and justice
in legal proceedings. Initially, it focused on procedural safeguards, such as the right to a fair trial and
notice of charges. This concept evolved over time, particularly in the 20th century, when courts
began to interpret due process as encompassing both procedural and substantive aspects.
Procedural due process ensures fair and transparent procedures, while substantive due process
protects certain fundamental rights from government interference, regardless of the procedure
used.

Discuss equal protections of laws vis the defunct Phil Truth Commission.

The Philippine Truth Commission, established by Executive Order No. 1 in 2010 under President
Benigno Aquino III, was tasked with investigating corruption during the administration of former
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. However, the Supreme Court of the Philippines declared the
commission unconstitutional in 2011. The court ruled that the commission violated the equal
protection clause of the Philippine Constitution by singling out the Arroyo administration for
investigation, thus exhibiting partiality and discrimination.

This decision underscores the importance of equal protection in the enforcement of laws. By
focusing exclusively on one administration, the Truth Commission was seen as discriminatory and
not impartial, which contravened the principle that all individuals and groups should be treated
equally under the law. The ruling emphasized that while combating corruption is essential, it must
be done in a manner that respects constitutional protections and ensures fair treatment for all.

If a mail man smells marijuana in one of his packages for delivery and proceeds to open the same
and confirms that it is marijuana. Can the illegal drugs be used as evidence?

Article III, Section 2 of the Philippine Constitution protects individuals against unreasonable searches
and seizures, stating that any search must be based on a warrant issued by a judge, except in
specific, well-defined circumstances.

In the case of People v. Marti (G.R. No. 81561, January 18, 1991), the Supreme Court ruled that
evidence obtained by private individuals without government instigation or participation is
admissible in court. In this case, a private security guard opened a package containing marijuana.
The court held that the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is a
restraint on the government and its agents, not on private individuals. Therefore, the marijuana
discovered by the private security guard was admissible as evidence.

Applying this precedent, if a mailman, acting as a private individual and not as an agent of the state,
smells marijuana in a package and opens it, the illegal drugs found could potentially be used as
evidence, as long as there was no government involvement or direction in the search. However, this
scenario can be complex, and the specific circumstances, including any involvement or knowledge by
law enforcement, would need to be carefully considered to determine the admissibility of the
evidence in court.
What is now the general rule in determining probable cause in the issuance of Warrants?

In Philippine jurisprudence, the general rule for determining probable cause in the issuance of
warrants is that it must be based on the judge's personal examination of the complainant and the
witnesses. The judge must independently evaluate the evidence presented, ensuring that there is a
reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person or property to
be seized is connected to the crime.

This principle is enshrined in Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, which states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and
no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or
things to be seized."

The Supreme Court, in cases such as Soliven v. Makasiar (G.R. No. 82585, November 14, 1988), has
reiterated this requirement. In People v. Estrada (G.R. No. 164368, April 2, 2009), the Court
emphasized that a judge must not rely solely on affidavits but should conduct a searching and
thorough examination of the complainant and the witnesses through probing questions and
answers, ensuring that the probable cause determination is based on the judge's personal
evaluation of the evidence.

Therefore, the general rule for determining probable cause in the issuance of warrants in the
Philippines involves a judge's personal and thorough examination of the evidence and testimonies,
ensuring an independent and judicious assessment to safeguard individuals' constitutional rights
against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Can the Bureau of Immigration Commissioner issue warrants of arrests? If Yes, under what instances
and If No, why?

In the Philippines, the Bureau of Immigration Commissioner does not have the authority to issue
warrants of arrest. The issuance of warrants of arrest is a judicial function, as mandated by the
Philippine Constitution and relevant jurisprudence.

Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution explicitly states that:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and
no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or
things to be seized."

This means that only judges are empowered to issue warrants of arrest based on their personal
determination of probable cause after conducting a thorough examination of the evidence and
witnesses.
Is probable cause ALWAYS a requirement for the issuance of warrants?

Yes, in the Philippines, probable cause is always a requirement for the issuance of warrants. This is a
constitutional mandate aimed at protecting individuals' rights against unreasonable searches and
seizures.

Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution explicitly states:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and
no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or
things to be seized."

This constitutional provision requires that:

1. Probable Cause: There must be a reasonable ground to believe that a crime has been
committed and that the person to be arrested or the items to be seized are connected to the
crime.

2. Personal Determination by a Judge: The judge must personally examine the complainant
and the witnesses under oath or affirmation to determine the existence of probable cause.

3. Specific Description: The warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and
the persons or things to be seized.

Can a Prosecutor determine Probable cause in behalf of the judge under our current constitution?
How about the 1973 and 1935 constitutions?

Under the current 1987 Philippine Constitution, the determination of probable cause for the
issuance of warrants is exclusively a judicial function and cannot be delegated to a prosecutor. This is
clearly articulated in Article III, Section 2:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable, and
no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the
witnesses he may produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or
things to be seized."

This provision mandates that only judges have the authority to determine probable cause for issuing
search and arrest warrants, ensuring judicial independence and protecting citizens' rights against
unreasonable searches and seizures.

Under the 1973 Constitution

The 1973 Constitution had a similar provision regarding the issuance of warrants. Article IV, Section
3 stated:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purpose shall not be violated,
and no search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be determined
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."

Like the current constitution, the 1973 Constitution required that probable cause be determined by
a judge, not a prosecutor.

Under the 1935 Constitution

The 1935 Constitution also had similar safeguards in place. Article III, Section 1(3) stated:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrant shall issue but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be
searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

While this provision did not explicitly state that only judges could determine probable cause, it was
generally interpreted and practiced that judges were the ones responsible for this determination.

Summary

Across the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Philippine Constitutions, the determination of probable cause for
issuing warrants has consistently been a judicial function. Prosecutors may conduct preliminary
investigations and recommend the filing of charges, but they do not have the authority to issue
warrants or determine probable cause for their issuance. This responsibility lies solely with the
judiciary to ensure impartiality and protection of individual rights.

What are the requirements of the plain view doctrine?

the plain view doctrine allows law enforcement officers to seize evidence without a warrant if it is in
plain view during a lawful observation. For the plain view doctrine to be applicable, the following
requirements must be met:

• Lawful Presence: The officer must be legally in a position to view the evidence. For example,
in People v. Dizon (G.R. No. 146551, March 7, 2005), the Court noted that the officers were
lawfully present during a search conducted with a valid warrant, which justified their view of
the evidence.

• Inadvertent Discovery: The evidence must be discovered without prior knowledge or

specific intent to find it. The Court has emphasized that the doctrine does not apply if the
evidence is discovered through deliberate searching.

• Immediate Apparent Illegality: The incriminating nature of the evidence must be

immediately recognizable. The officer must be able to see that the item is related to criminal
activity based on its appearance and context. In People v. Masangkay (G.R. No. 175452,
September 18, 2007), the Supreme Court upheld the seizure of evidence found in plain view
because its illegal nature was evident to the officers.

In summary, for the plain view doctrine to be valid in the Philippines, the evidence must be seen
during lawful activities, discovered inadvertently, and immediately recognizable as evidence of a
crime or contraband. This doctrine helps balance the need for effective law enforcement with the
protection of constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Can there be a john doe warrant of arrest?

In Philippine law, a John Doe warrant of arrest is generally not permissible. A warrant of arrest must
be specific and particularize the person to be arrested, as mandated by the 1987 Philippine
Constitution.

Constitutional and Jurisprudence Requirements

1. Specific Identification: Article III, Section 2 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution requires that
search and arrest warrants particularly describe the person or place to be searched and the
things to be seized. This principle ensures that warrants are specific enough to prevent
arbitrary arrests and protect individual rights.

2. Supreme Court Ruling: The Supreme Court of the Philippines has consistently held that
warrants must specifically identify the person to be arrested. In People v. Go (G.R. No.
184581, August 31, 2010), the Court emphasized that a warrant of arrest must identify the
accused with particularity, and the use of a generic or vague description would be
unconstitutional.

3. Due Process Considerations: A John Doe warrant lacks the specificity required to ensure
that the correct individual is apprehended. Such warrants would fail to meet the due process
standards established under Philippine law, as they do not provide sufficient notice or detail
to prevent wrongful arrests.

Examples of instances were search may be done without warrants?

1. Consent: A search may be conducted without a warrant if the individual gives voluntary and
informed consent. This consent must be clear, unequivocal, and not coerced. For example, in
People v. Balisong (G.R. No. 192583, March 10, 2010), the Supreme Court held that consent
to search must be given freely and voluntarily.

2. Exigent Circumstances: Searches without a warrant are permissible when there is an urgent
need to act to prevent harm or destruction of evidence. This includes situations where
evidence might be destroyed or where there is an imminent danger to life or property. For
instance, in People v. Gamboa (G.R. No. 167927, April 2, 2007), the Court upheld the
warrantless search conducted due to the urgency of the situation.

3. Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest: When an arrest is made lawfully, law enforcement
officers may conduct a search of the person and the immediate vicinity around them to
ensure officer safety and prevent the destruction of evidence. This principle is outlined in
People v. Narag (G.R. No. 164231, November 21, 2005), where the search was considered
valid as it was incidental to the lawful arrest.

4. Plain View Doctrine: Evidence that is in plain view of an officer who is lawfully present in the
place where the evidence is observed can be seized without a warrant. The evidence must
be immediately apparent as contraband or evidence of a crime. This was affirmed in People
v. Aruta (G.R. No. 120915, April 3, 1998), where the plain view doctrine was applied.
 5. Automobile Exception: Searches of vehicles without a warrant are allowed under certain
conditions, such as when there is probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains
evidence of a crime. This is often due to the inherent mobility of vehicles, which justifies the
need for immediate action. In People v. Dela Cruz (G.R. No. 145059, December 9, 2004), the
Court recognized the automobile exception.

6. Border Searches: Searches conducted at international borders or customs checkpoints are

generally exempt from warrant requirements due to the need for national security and
immigration control. Such searches are considered part of the regulatory function of
customs and immigration authorities.

7. Emergency Situations: In situations involving emergencies, such as natural disasters or

accidents, where immediate search and rescue operations are necessary, warrants may not
be required.

These exceptions are designed to address practical needs in law enforcement while still respecting
constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Each instance must meet
specific criteria to ensure that the search remains reasonable and justifiable under the law.

Can a wire tap be used as evidence of a crime?

In the Philippines, wiretapping and other forms of electronic surveillance are generally subject to
strict legal regulations, and the use of evidence obtained through wiretapping is limited by these
rules.

Legal Framework

1. Anti-Wiretapping Law: The primary legislation governing wiretapping in the Philippines is

Republic Act No. 4200, also known as the Anti-Wiretapping Act of 1965. This law prohibits
wiretapping and other forms of electronic surveillance without a valid court order. It
specifies that wiretapping can only be conducted with the authorization of the court and
under certain conditions.

2. Court Authorization: According to the Anti-Wiretapping Act, wiretapping or other forms of

electronic surveillance require prior judicial authorization. The application for such
authorization must be supported by probable cause and must be approved by a court.

3. Admissibility of Evidence: Evidence obtained through wiretapping without proper court

authorization is generally inadmissible in court. The Supreme Court of the Philippines has
consistently held that evidence acquired in violation of the Anti-Wiretapping Act is
inadmissible and cannot be used in legal proceedings. This principle is rooted in the
protection of constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures.

o **In People v. Sanchez (G.R. No. 164492, July 19, 2005), the Supreme Court ruled
that evidence obtained through unauthorized wiretapping was inadmissible. The
Court emphasized that any evidence gathered in violation of the law cannot be used
in court to ensure respect for constitutional protections.

4. Exceptions and Procedural Safeguards: Even with a court order, the use of wiretapping
evidence is subject to strict procedural safeguards to ensure that it is used appropriately and
 does not violate individual rights. The evidence must be relevant and must not exceed the
scope of the court's authorization.

Summary

In summary, while wiretapping can be used as evidence of a crime in the Philippines, it is subject to
strict legal requirements. Evidence obtained through wiretapping must be authorized by a court
order under the Anti-Wiretapping Act. Any wiretapping conducted without such authorization
renders the evidence inadmissible in court, reflecting the importance of adhering to legal safeguards
and constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.