Cases for Search and Seizure PDF

Preview

Summary

Cases for Search and Seizure People vs. Pastrana, February 21, 2018 – Purpose The necessity of requiring stringent procedural safeguards before a search warrant can be issued is to give meaning to the constitutional right of a person to the privacy of his home and personalities. Dela Cruz vs. People...

Description

Cases for Search and Seizure 1. People vs. Pastrana, February 21, 2018 – Purpose - The necessity of requiring stringent procedural safeguards before a search warrant can be issued is to give meaning to the constitutional right of a person to the privacy of his home and personalities. 2. Dela Cruz vs. People, January 11, 2016 – Scope - the protection against unreasonable searches and seizures cannot be extended to acts committed by private individuals so as to bring it within the ambit of alleged unlawful intrusion by the government. 3. Pollo vs. Chairperson Constantino-David, October 18, 2011- Scope - policy that puts its employees on notice that they have no expectation of privacy in anything they create, store, send, or receive on the office computers, and that the CSC may monitor the use of the computer resources using both automated or humans means. - certain legitimate intrusions into privacy of employees in the government workplace 4. People vs. Marti, January 18, 1991 - To whom directed - This constitutional right (against unreasonable search and seizure) refers to the immunity of one's person, whether citizen or alien, from interference by government. - There the state, however powerful, does not as such have the access except under the circumstances above noted, for in the traditional formulation, his house, however humble, is his castle. Thus is outlawed any unwarranted intrusion by government, which is called upon to refrain from any invasion of his dwelling and to respect the privacies of his life. - Protection against the state. The Bill of Rights governs the relationship between the individual and the state. Its concern is not the relation between individuals, between a private individual and other individuals. What the Bill of Rights does is to declare some forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible to any power holder 5. Miguel vs. People, July 31, 2017 - To whom directed 6. Worldwide Web Corporation vs. People, July 13, 2014 - Nature of a search warrant; general warrants - mere innocent and negligent omissions or misrepresentations of witnesses will not cause the quashal of a search warrant.

- An application for a search warrant is not a criminal action. - A warrant, such as a warrant of arrest or a search warrant, merely constitutes process. - A search warrant is defined in our jurisdiction as 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 and bring it before the court. A search warrant is in the nature of a criminal process akin to a writ of discovery. It is a special and peculiar remedy, drastic in its nature, and made necessary because of a public necessity - An application for a search warrant is a judicial process conducted either as an incident in a main criminal case already filed in court or in anticipation of one yet to be filed. - A general warrant is defined as "(a) search or arrest warrant that is not particular as to the person to be arrested or the property to be seized." It is one that allows the "seizure of one thing under a warrant describing another" and gives the officer executing the warrant the discretion over which items to take 7. People vs. Dichoso, June 4, 1993 - General search warrants 8. Chua vs. People, July 01, 2003 - Conditions of a valid warrant 9. Allado vs. Diokno, May 5, 1994 - Requirements for the issuance of a warrant of arrest - probable cause for an arrest or for the issuance of a warrant of arrest has been defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. - (a) The determination of probable cause is a function of the judge; it is not for the provincial fiscal or prosecutor to ascertain. Only the judge and the judge alone makes this determination; (b) The preliminary inquiry made by a prosecutor does not bind the .judge. It merely assists him in making the determination of probable cause. The judge does not have to follow what the prosecutor presents to him. By itself, the prosecutor's certification of probable cause is ineffectual. It is the report, the affidavits, the transcript of stenographic notes (if any), and all other supporting documents behind the prosecutor's certification which are material in assisting the judge in his determination of probable cause; and, (c) Judges and prosecutors alike should distinguish the preliminary inquiry which determines probable cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest from the preliminary investigation proper which ascertains whether the offender should be held for trial or released. Even if the two inquiries be conducted in the course of one and the same proceeding, there should be no confusion about their objectives. The determination of

probable cause for the warrant is made by the judge. The preliminary investigation proper - whether or not there is reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense charged and therefore, whether or not he should be subjected to the expense, rigors and embarrassment of trial - is a function of the prosecutor. - the probable cause test is an objective one, for in order that there be probable cause the facts and circumstances must be such as would warrant a belief by a reasonably discreet and prudent man that the accused is guilty of the crime which has just been committed 10. Columbia Pictures vs. Flores, June 29, 1993 - Requisites in the issuance of search warrants 1.) 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. 11. Prof. David vs. Macapagal-Arroyo, May 03, 2006 - Steps in the conduct of search and seizure Rule 126 of The Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure lays down the steps in the conduct of search and seizure. a.)Section 4 requires that a search warrant be issued upon probable cause in connection with one specific offence to be determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce; b.)Section 8 mandates that the search of a house, room, or any other premise be made in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of his family or in the absence of the latter, in the presence of two (2) witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality; and c.) Section 9 states that the warrant must direct that it be served in the daytime, unless the property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched, in which case a direction may be inserted that it be served at any time of the day or night. 12. Mendoza vs. People, April 21, 2014 - Two kinds of determination of probable cause - There are two kinds of determination of probable cause: executive and judicial. -The executive determination of probable cause is one made during preliminary investigation. It is a function that properly pertains to the public prosecutor who is given a broad discretion to determine whether probable cause exists and to charge those

whom he believes to have committed the crime as defined by law and thus should be held for trial. Otherwise stated, such official has the quasi-judicial authority to determine whether or not a criminal case must be filed in court. Whether or not that function has been correctly discharged by the public prosecutor, i.e., whether or not he has made a correct ascertainment of the existence of probable cause in a case, is a matter that the trial court itself does not and may not be compelled to pass upon. - The judicial determination of probable cause, on the other hand, is one made by the judge to ascertain whether a warrant of arrest should be issued against the accused. The judge must satisfy himself that based on the evidence submitted, there is necessity for placing the accused under custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice. If the judge finds no probable cause, the judge cannot be forced to issue the arrest warrant. - The difference is clear: The executive determination of probable cause concerns itself with whether there is enough evidence to support an Information being filed. The judicial determination of probable cause, on the other hand, determines whether a warrant of arrest should be issued.

13. People vs. Choi, August 03, 2006 - Requisites for determination of the existence of probable cause -The determination of the existence of probable cause requires the following: (1) the judge must examine the complainant and his witnesses personally; (2) the examination must be under oath and (3) the examination must be reduced in writing in the form of searching questions and answers 14. Homar vs. People, September 02, 2015, Warrantless arrest and search and seizure (in flagrante delicto arrest) - To constitute a valid in flagrante delicto arrest, two requisites must concur: (1) the person to be arrested must execute an overt act indicating that he has just committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime; and (2) such overt act is done in the presence of or within the view of the arresting officer. - The intent to arrest an accused in a warrantless search incident to a lawful arrest is indispensable 15. Warrantless arrest and search and seizure ( in flagrante delicto arrest and seizure of evidence in "plain view") - The plain view doctrine applies when the following requisites concur:

(1) the law enforcement officer in search of the evidence has a prior justification for an intrusion or is in a position from which he can view a particular area; - (2) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and - (3) it is immediately apparent to the officer that the item he observes may be evidence of a crime, contraband or otherwise subject to seizure 16. Veridiano vs. People, June 07, 2017 - Warrantless arrest and search and seizure (warrantless search was incidental to a lawful arrest) -

17. People vs. Cogaed, July 30, 2014, warrantless searches and seizures (stop- and-frisk search) - the act of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him, and pat him for weapon(s) or contraband." Thus, the allowable scope of a "stop and frisk" search is limited to a "protective search of outer clothing for weapons." - While probable cause is not required, a "stop and frisk" search cannot be validated on the basis of a suspicion or hunch. Law enforcers must have a genuine reason to believe, based on their experience and the particular circumstances of each case, that criminal activity may be afoot. 18. Sanchez vs. People - November 19, 2014, Warrantless arrest and search and seizure (stop- and-frisk search and search incidental to a lawful arrest) - A stop and frisk was defined as the act of a police officer to stop a citizen on the street, interrogate him, and pat him for weapon(s) or contraband. a.) The police officer should properly introduce himself and make initial inquiries, approach and restrain a person who manifests unusual and suspicious conduct, in order to check the latters outer clothing for possibly concealed weapons. b.) The apprehending police officer must have a genuine reason, in accordance with the police officers experience and the surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief that the person to be held has weapons (or contraband) concealed about him. It should therefore be emphasized that a search and seizure should precede the arrest for this principle to apply 19. People vs. Cuizon, April 18, 1996 - Warrantless arrest and search and seizure (search incidental to a lawful arrest) -

20. Caballes vs. CA, January 15, 2002 - Warrantless arrest and search and seizure (search of moving vehicle, plain view doctrine and consented search) - (Search of Moving Vehicle)Routine inspections are not regarded as violative of an individual's right against unreasonable search. The search which is normally permissible in this instance is limited to the following instances: (1) where the officer merely draws aside the curtain of a vacant vehicle which is parked on the public fair grounds; (2) simply looks into a vehicle; (3) flashes a light therein without opening the car's doors; (4) where the occupants are not subjected to a physical or body search; (5) where the inspection of the vehicles is limited to a visual search or visual inspection; and (6) where the routine check is conducted in a fixed area.

- requisites for consented search 1.) the right exists; 2.) that the person involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the existence of such right; and 3.) the said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right...