Module 2 2023
Module 2 2023
Module 2 2023
COLLEGE OF LAW
Santiago City
MODULE NO. 002-A
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW II
S.Y. 2022-2023
A. PRELIMINARY.
Section 2 of Article III of the 1987 Constitution secures the peoples’ right
against invalid intrusion by the government to the extent that it describes
such right to be INVIOLABLE. On the other end of the spectrum, the
government intrusion into private sphere as long as it conforms to the
requirement of our constitution will be VALID. Thus, it is important to
remember that only those actions considered as UNREASONABLE is
protected by the guaranty.
Constitution.
xxx
Note that a warrant is not an action and the basic distinction of the two is
that a warrant cannot be tied down by the rules on jurisdiction while an
action necessarily depend on the rules on jurisdiction. Moreover, Section 3
of THE INTERIM OR TRANSITIONAL RULES AND GUIDELINES RELATIVE TO THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDICIARY REORGANIZATION ACT OF 1980 (B.P.
Blg. 129), States –
Since, warrants of arrests and search warrant are not among those writs or
processes whose enforcement are limited by paragraph (a) of the rules, it
follows that warrant of arrest and search warrant may be enforced
anywhere in the country.
“An application for search warrant shall be filed with the following:
In the case of Nala vs. Barroso, G.R. No. 153087, August 7, 2003, the
Supreme Court did not only defined probable cause but also explained
how probable cause may be establish, thus, the court said–
Does this statement makes up probable cause for cyber libel? Why?
In the case of Lim vs. Felix, G.R. No. 94054-57, February 19, 1991, the
Supreme Court said –
Art. III, Sec. 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.
Thus, for purposes of the issuance of a Warrant of Arrest the judge may
rely on the records of the case together with the certification of a
prosecutor but a judge cannot rely solely on the certification of
prosecutor for the issuance of a warrant of arrest, to this end the Supreme
Court in the case of Lim vs. Felix, supra, said –
In so far as, the manner by which a judge must conduct his examination,
the law requires that it be made through a searching question, under
oath and in writing. Thus, in the case of Nolasco, Et. Al. vs. Pano, Et. Al.,
G.R. No. L-69803, October 8, 1985, the Supreme Court said –
Then in the case of Silva, Et. Al., vs. The Presiding Judge, RTC, Negros
Oriental, Branch XXXIII, Dumaguete City, G.R. No. 81756, October 21, 1991,
the Supreme Court said –
“The above deposition did not only contain leading questions but it
was also very broad. The questions propounded to the witnesses
were in fact, not probing but were merely routinary. The deposition
was already mimeographed and all that the witnesses had to do
was fill in their answers on the blanks provided.
Likewise, in the Prudente case cited earlier, this Court declared the
search warrant issued as invalid due to the failure of the judge to
examine the witness in the form of searching questions and answers.
Pertinent portion of the decision reads:
"Moreover, a perusal of the deposition of P/Lt. Florencio Angeles
shows that it was too brief and short. Respondent Judge did not
examine him ‘in the form of searching questions and answers’. On
the contrary, the questions asked were leading as they called for a
simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer. As held in Quintero v. NBI, ‘the questions
propounded by respondent Executive Judge to the applicant’s
witness are not sufficiently searching to establish probable cause.
Asking of leading questions to the deponent in an application for
search warrant, and conducting of examination in a general
manner, would not satisfy the requirements for issuance of a valid
search warrant."
Thus, in issuing a search warrant, the judge must strictly comply with
the constitutional and statutory requirement that he must determine
the existence of probable cause by personally examining the
applicant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions and
answers. His failure to comply with this requirement constitutes grave
abuse of discretion. As declared in Marcelo v. De Guzman, G.R. No.
L-29077, June 29, 1982, 114 SCRA 667, "the capricious disregard by
the judge in not complying with the requirements before issuance
of search warrants constitutes abuse of discretion."
(Emphasis supplied)
C.3.1. Aside from requiring that the examination must be made through
searching and/or probing questions, Section 5 of Rule 126 of the Rules of
Court mentioned that the examination must be in writing, this requirement
is however formal in character and will not affect the validity of the
Search warrant if there are other evidences to prove that the examination
was personally conducted by the judge through searching questions.
In the case of Honesto Oga Yon y Diaz vs. People of the Philippines, G.R.
No. 188794, September 2, 2015, the Supreme Court said –
C.4.2. This rule applies also to issuance of a warrant of arrest, the name of
the person to be seize need not be specified as long as there is a
description sufficient under the law to describe the person to be arrested.
Failure to satisfy any of this requirement will make the warrant a general
warrant and is therefore null and void.
From this provision, it is clear that a warrant of arrest can only be issued for
one specific offense, otherwise, if the warrant encompass more than one
offense, the warrant is legally infirm and vulnerable to objection for being
null and void, however, the objection to this kind of warrant may be
waived if not properly and timely objected.