q&as - consti 2 searches and arrests.doc

7/29/2019 Q&As - CONSTI 2 Searches and Arrests.doc

1/7

Searches and SeizuresZyra Cuevas

Can police officers confiscate anything in violation of law? May it be used inevidence?

Police officers may confiscate articles that are subject to search and seizure (object of theoffense, fruit or proceeds, used or about to be used as a means of committing an offense).

They may also confiscate articles prohibited by the law, but they are inadmissible as evidenceif such was not conducted under a valid warrantless search and seizure. (see 10 instances)

Is a search warrant a sweeping authority?

No. According to People vs Del Rosario, a search warrant is not a sweeping authorityempowering the raiding party to undertake a fishing expedition to seize and confiscate anyand all kinds of evidence relating to a crime. This is so because the Constitution specificallymandates that the search warrant must particularly describe the things to be seized.

Reasonable arrest without a warrant

In flagrante delicto, Hot pursuit, Escape of prisoner or detainee, In cases of continuingoffense, When the right is waived by the person arrested, knowing that he knew of such rightand decided not to invoke it.

What is the meaning of in his presence?

As defined in People vs. Sucro, an offense is committed in the presence of an officer, within

the meaning of the rule authorizing a warrantless arrest, when the officer sees the offense,although at a distance or hears the disturbances created thereby and proceeds at once to thescene thereof.

Why in the new rule it says probable cause based on personal knowledge?

Because reliable information alone or hearsay is not sufficient to justify a valid warrantlessarrest. The officer must have personal knowledge of the overt acts of the accused whichindicate that he has,is, or was about to commit an offense.

Under the new rule (Rule 113, Section 5), is personal knowledge required?

Is 6 days tantamount to has just been committed How about several hourse?Crime committed in the morning, arrest in the evening? How about in hot pursuit?

No. There, must be a large measure of immediacy between the time the offense wascommitted an the time of the arrest and if there was an appreciable lapse of time betweenthe arrest and the commission of the crime, a warrant of arrest must be secured. Aside fromthe sense of immediacy, it is also mandatory that the person making the arrest has personal


2/7


knowledge of certain facts indicating that the person to be taken into custody has committedthe crime.

What are the requirements that evidence may be seen in plain view?

Under the plain view doctrine, the objects seized must be within the sight of an officer whohas a right to be in a position to have that view. Four elements must concur: First, there musthave been a prior valid intrusion based on a valid warrantless arrest in which the police arelegally present in the pursuit of their official duties. Second, the evidence was inaverdentlydiscovered by the police who have a right to be where they are. Third, the evidence must beimmediately apparent. And Fourth, the plain view justified the mere seizure of evidencewithout further search.

What are the two objectives of stop and frisk?

A "stop-and-frisk" serves a two-fold interest: (1) the general interest of effective crimeprevention and detection, which underlies the recognition that a police officer may, underappropriate circumstances and in an appropriate manner, approach a person for purposes ofinvestigating possible criminal behavior even without probable cause; and (2) the morepressing interest of safety and self-preservation which permit the police officer to take stepsto assure himself that the person with whom he deals is not armed with a deadly weapon thatcould unexpectedly and fatally be used against the police officer.

People vs Mengote

Police received a call from informer that there were suspicious men at an area. A surveillance

team was dipatched. The said men were seen to have been looking from side to side and oneof them was holding his abdomen. When the policemen identified themselves, the men triedto run away but were captured. A weapon was found in their person, which was identified asone of the articles stolen from a man during a robbery. However, there was nothing tosupport the arresting officers suspicion.

What is the yardstick in determining probable cause?

Probable cause determined by a trained or experienced officer.

What is the extent in seaching moving vehicles?

The search would be valid provided that they are made at constructive borders orcheckpoints. For a mere routine inspection, the search is permissible if it is limited only to amere visual search where the occupants are not subjected to a physical or body search. Anextensive search is permissible only if the officers had probable cause to believe that themotorist is a law offender.

Bill of Rights-Against the State-People vs Marti


3/7


The right against unreasonable search and seizure is a restraint upon the government. It doesnot apply so as to require the exclusion of evidence which came into the possession of theGovernment through a search made by a private citizen. The Bill of Rights does not protectcitizens from unreasonable searches and seizures made by individuals.

Exclusionary Rule

Evidence obtained in violation of Sec. 2, Article 3 shall be inadmissible for any purpose in anyproceeding, because it is the fruit of the poisonous tree.

Is there a constitutional right against privacy?

Substance

The nature of the conversations is immaterial to a violation of the statute. The substance ofthe same need not be specifically alleged in the information. What R.A. 4200 penalizes arethe acts of secretly overhearing, intercepting or recording private communications by meansof the devices enumerated therein. The mere allegation that an individual made a secretrecording of a private communication by means of a tape recorder would suffice to constitutean offense under Section 1 of R.A. 4200.

What other zones of privacy are protected in the Constitution?

Sec. 1 of Article 3: No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due

process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws.... andSec. 2. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, andeffects againstunreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any purposeshall be inviolable

Ople vs Torres

Ruling: AO 308 falls short of assuring that personal information which will be gathered aboutthe people will only be processed for unequivocally unspecified purposes. The possibilities ofabuse and misuse of technology is accentuated when the individual lacks control over what

can be read or placed on his ID. (Liberty and abode, Self-incrimination, may pave the way forfishing expeditions, etc.)

Communication versus Conversation

The word communicate comes from the latin word communicare, meaning "to share or toimpart." In its ordinary signification, communication connotes the act of sharing or impartingsignification, communicationconnotes the act of sharing or imparting, as ina conversation, 15 or signifies the "process by which meanings or thoughts are sharedbetween individuals through a common system of symbols (as language signs or


4/7


gestures). These definitions are broad enough to include verbal or non-verbal, written orexpressive communications of "meanings or thoughts" which are likely to include theemotionally-charged exchange, between petitioner and private respondent, in the privacy ofthe latter's office. Any doubts about the legislative body's meaning of the phrase"private communication" are, furthermore, put to rest by the fact that the terms"conversation" and "communication" were interchangeably used by Senator Taada in his

Explanatory Note to the bill.

R.A. 2400: Can it be violated by one who is privy to the communication?

In Ramirez vs CA, it was stated that Section 1 of R.A. 4200 clearly and unequivocally makesit illegal for any person, not authorized by all the parties to any private communication tosecretly record such communication by means of a tape recorder. The law makes nodistinction as to whether the party sought to be penalized by the statute ought to be a partyother than or different from those involved in the privatecommunication. The statutes intentto penalize all persons unauthorized to make such recording is underscored by the use of thequalifier any. Consequently, .even a (person) privy to a communication who records his

private conversation with another without the knowledge of the latter (will) qualify as aviolator under this provision of R.A. 4200.

Violation-extension phone/cellphone. Strict Construction?

In Gaanan vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, a case which dealt with the issue of telephonewiretapping, we held that the use of a telephone extension for the purpose of overhearing aprivate conversation without authorization did not violate R.A. 4200 because a telephoneextension devise was neither among those "device(s) or arrangement(s)" enumeratedtherein, following the principle that "penal statutes must be construed strictly in favor of the

accused."

The statute itself explicitly mentions the unauthorized "recording" of privatecommunications with the use of tape-recorders as among the acts punishable

Exclusionary/Non-Exclusionary

The Exclusionary Rule Principle (Remedial Law)- the principle which mandates thatevidence obtained from an illegal arrest, unreasonable search or coerciveinvestigation, or in violation of a particular law, must be excluded from the trial andwill not be admitted as evidence.The principle judges the admissibility of evidence based on HOW the evidence isobtained or acquired and not WHAT the evidence proves.

The principle is to be applied only if it is so expressly provided for by the constitutionor by a particular law. Even if the manner of obtaining the evidence is in violation of acertain law but the law does not declare that the evidence is inadmissible, then suchevidence will be admissible.

Sec. 4, Artlce 3, rights-mere coincidence, why?

Scope. What is the extent of freedom of expression?


5/7


The freedom of expression includes not only the popular opinion but also the unorthodoxview. The freedom to speak includes the right to be silent. Any and all modes of expressionare embraced in the guaranty.

Are they identical?

No, these rights are Separable.

Difference between Freedom of Expression and Speech

Ayer Productions versus Capulong. Is the right of freedom of expression availableto them?

The right of privacy or "the right to be let alone," like the right of free expression, is not an

absolute right. A limited intrusion into a person's privacy has long been regarded aspermissible where that person is a public figure and the information sought to be elicited fromhim or to be published about him constitute of apublic character. The right of privacy cannotbe invoked resist publication and dissemination of matters of public interest. The interestsought to be protected by the right of privacy is the right to be freefrom unwarrantedpublicity, from the wrongful publicizing of the private affairs and activitiesof an individual which are outside the realm of legitimate public concern.

Enrile was held as a public figure because of his participation as a principal actor in theculminating events of the change of government. Because his participation therein was majorin character, a film reenactment that would fail to make reference to him would be grosslyunhistorical.

What is the value of freedom of expression in a democratic government?

As an individual particle of sovereignty, every citizen has a right to offer his views andsuggestions in the discussion of the common problems of the community or the nation. This isnot only a right but a duty.

Justice Holmes- Clear and Present Danger Rule

True Test of Constitutional Right?

US vs Bustos

(Justice of the Peace was charged with malfeasance in office by citizens of Pampanga, notentitled to qualified privilege) The people have a right to scrutinize and comment orcondemn the conduct of their chosen representatives in the government. As long as theircomments are made in GOOD FAITH & WITH JUSTIFIABLE ENDS, they are insulated from


6/7


prosecution or damage suits for defamation even if such views are found to be inaccurate orerroneous. A public officer must not be too thin-skinned with reference to comment upon hisoffical acts.

Is truth relevant in Freedom of Expression?

Does freedom of expression include attack to public officers? Judicial officers?

The official acts and even the private life of a public servant are legitimate subjects of publiccomment. This is applicable to a public figure, like a candidate for public office. BUT publiccomment on pending litigation is proscribed, on the ground that it may interfere with theadministration of justice.

US vs Bustos: The guaranties of a free speech and a free press include the right to criticizejudicial conduct. The administration of the law is a matter of vital public concern. Whether thelaw is wisely or badly enforced is, therefore, a fit subject for proper comment. If the peoplecannot criticize a justice of the peace or a judge the same as any other public officer, publicopinion will be effectively muzzled. Attempted terrorization of public opinion on the part ofthe judiciary would be tyranny of the basest sort.

Is the respect accorded to judicial officers the same with public officers?

No. Criticism of the courts in the absence of litigation or termination of a case may be doneonly as long as it is couched in a respectful language.

Private individuals involved in public issue? Yes.

What is a public figure? Reasons why a public figure enjoys lesser privacy.

A public figure has been defined as a person who, by his accomplishments, fame, or mode ofliving, or by adopting a profession or calling which gives the public a legitimate interest in hisdoings, his affairs, and his character, has become a 'public personage.' He is, in other words,a celebrity. Obviously to be included in this category are those who have achieved somedegree of reputation by appearing before the public.

Such public figures were held to have lost, to some extent at least, their tight toprivacy. Three reasons were given, more or less indiscrimately, in the decisions" that theyhad sought publicity and consented to it, and so could not complaint when they receivedit; that their personalities and their affairs has already public, and could no longer beregarded as their own private business; and that the press had a privilege, under theConstitution, to inform the public about those who have become legitimate matters of publicinterest.

What does a celebrity mean?


7/7


A celebrity is one who seeks publicity and therefore becomes public property. It is theobligation of the press to inform the public of what may interest them. Constitutionality of anact is one thing, propriety is another.

q&as - consti 2 searches and arrests.doc

Documents