BILL OF RIGHTS (Finals)

Section 2: The right of the people to be secured 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.

Purpose
This is to protect the privacy and sanctity of the person and of his house and other
possessions against arbitrary intrusions by State officers. It prohibits unreasonable searches and
seizures.

Unreasonable search and seizure

Searches and seizures are normally unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued
search warrant or warrant of arrest.

Search Warrant
A fundamental protection such that between the person and the police must stand the
protective authority of a magistrate clothed with the power to issue or refuse to issue search
warrants or warrants of arrest

Doctrines
The constitutional proscription against unlawful searches and seizures applies as a restraint
directed only against the government and its agencies tasked with enforcement of the law and not
against private individuals. People v. Marti
That there is a specific victim of a particular offense is not a requisite for a warrant to issue.
Central Bank v. Morfe Since the Commissioner on Immigration is not a judge, he may not issue
warrants of arrest in aid merely of his investigatory power. However, he may order the arrest of an
alien for the purpose of carrying out a deportation order that has already become final.
The American Court has held that a warrant and finding of probable cause are unnecessary
in the public school context because such requirements would unduly interfere with the
maintenance of the swift and informal disciplinary procedures that are needed. Vernonia Sch.
District

Checkpoint
Checkpoints are not illegal per se. Under exceptional circumstances, as where the survival
of organized government is on the balance, or where the lives and safety of the people are in grave
peril, checkpoints may be allowed and installed by the government. Routine inspection and a few
questions do not constitute unreasonable searches. If the inspection becomes more thorough to the
extent of becoming a search, this can be done when there is deemed to be probable cause. In the
latter situation, it is justifiable as a warrantless search of a moving vehicle. Valmonte v. General
de Villa
Requisites of a valid warrant
1. It must be issued upon “probable cause”
2. Probable cause must be determined personally by a judge
3. Such judge must examine under oath or affirmation the complainant and the witnesses
he may produce
4. The warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the person or things
to be seized

Probable Cause
It means such facts and circumstances antecedent to the issuance of a warrant that are in
themselves sufficient to induce a cautious man to rely upon them.

Probable Cause for the issuance of a warrant of arrest

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.

Probable Cause for a search

Such 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.

Who may determine probable cause for the purpose of issuing a warrant? ONLY A JUDGE.

Who determines probable cause for the purpose of filing an information? THE
PROSECUTION.

Personal Examination
What the Constitution underscores is the exclusive and personal responsibility of the
issuing judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. He may also rely on the fiscal’s
report or if on the basis thereof he finds no probable cause, he may disregard the fiscal’s report
and require the submission of supporting affidavits of witnesses to aid him in arriving at a
conclusion as to the existence of probable cause. This means that what is required is personal
determination and not personal examination. Beltran v. Makasiar

Particularity of Description
A search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized when the
description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow and by which the
warrant officer may be guided in making the search and seizure. Bache & Co. v. Ruiz

It is not required that technical precision of description be required, particularly where, by

the nature of the goods to be seized, their description must be rather general, since the requirement
of a technical description would mean that no warrant could issue. People v. Tee

Purpose
Its purpose is to prevent abuse by the officer enforcing the warrant by leaving him no
discretion as to who or what to search or seize.
John Doe Warrant
For “John Doe” warrant to satisfy the requirement of particularity of description, it must
contain descriptio personae such as will enable the officer to identify the accused. People v. Veloso

In determining the sufficiency of the description of the address, the executing officer’s
prior knowledge of the place intended in the warrant is relevant. Burgos Sr. v. Chief of Staff

Examination of Bank Deposits

An examination of the secrecy of bank deposits law would reveal the following allowable
exceptions:

a. Where the depositor consents in writing

b. Impeachment case
c. By court order in bribery or dereliction of duty cases against public officials
d. Deposit is subject of litigation
e. In cases of unexplained wealth as held in the case of PNB v. Gancayco

Specific Description Rule

1. The unreasonable search and seizure clause must be construed strictly in favor of the
individual
2. The personal knowledge of the complainant when applying for a search/arrest warrant
is mandatory when there is only one complainant and no other witnesses
3. The affidavit of the witnesses is mandatory only when the primary complaint is based
on hearsay
4. The description of the objects in a search warrant must be specific, unless the nature of
the object dictates that the description must be general

Exclusionary Rule
Any evidence obtained in a search or seizure without a warrant or by authority of an invalid
warrant “shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.”

Doctrines
Sec. 26, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure: An application for bail or
the admission to bail by the accused shall not be considered as a waiver of his right to assail the
warrant issued for his arrest on the legalities or irregularities thereon. Okbabe v. Judge de Leon

Goods illegally seized shall be returned unless the possession of such goods is prohibited
by law. Castro v. Judge Pabalan

The objection to an unlawful search or seizure and to evidence obtained thereby is purely
personal and cannot be availed of by third parties. Stonehill v. Diokno

It is not required that the property to be searched should be owned by the person against
whom the search warrant is directed, but is sufficient that the property is under the control or
possession of the person sought to be searched. Burgos Sr. v. Chief of Staff
Allowable warrantless searches

1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest

Requirements
a. The item to be searched was within the arrestee’s custody or area of immediate control
b. The search was contemporaneous with the arrest

2. Seizure of evidence in “plain view”

Requirements
a. A prior valid intrusion into a place
b. The evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where
they are
c. The legality of the evidence must be immediately apparent
d. And is noticed without further search

3. Search of a moving vehicle

Highly regulated by the government because of its inherent mobility. But there must
be a highly reasonable suspicion amounting to probable cause that the occupant committed
a criminal activity.

Doctrine
A fishing vessel found to be violating fishery laws may be seized without a warrant
because
a. They are usually equipped with powerful motors that enable them to elude pursuit
b. The seizure would be incidental to the lawful arrest of the crew

4. Consented warrantless search

It must appear
a. The right exists
b. The person involved had knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the existence of
such right
c. That said person had an actual intention to relinquish the right

5. Customs search or seizure of goods concealed to avoid duties

Doctrine
Except in the case of the search of a dwelling house, persons exercising police
authority under the customs law may affect search and seizure without a search warrant in
the enforcement of customs laws. Thus, the seizure of an automobile coupled with
reasonable suspicion and probable cause determined by customs officials is valid.

6. Stop and Frisk

“When an experienced police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him
reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and
that the person with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, he may
after identifying himself frisk the person for weans”
 Scope
A limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons

Two-fold interest
A. The general interest of effective crime prevention and detection
B. The more pressing interest of safety and self-preservation

7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances

The essential requisite of probable cause must still be satisfied before a warrantless
search and seizure can be lawfully conducted

Doctrines
A permission granted for officers to enter a house to look for rebel soldiers does
not include permission for a room to room search for firearms. Spouses Veroy v. Layague

Warrantless Arrests
Rule 113, Section 5, Rules of Court:
A peace officer or a private person may, without warrant, arrest a person
1. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing,
or attempting to commit an offense
2. When an offense has in fact been committed, and he has personal knowledge of facts
indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it
3. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment
or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is
pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another

Buy-bust operation
A buy-bust operation is a form of entrapment. The method is for an officer to pose as a
buyer. He, however, neither instigates nor induces the accused to commit a crime.

Doctrines
Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or procedure in the acquisition by the court of
jurisdiction over the person of the accused must be made before he enters his plea, otherwise the
objection is deemed waived. People v. Cabiles

Jurisprudence is settled that an accused is stopped from assailing the illegality of his arrest
if he fails to move for the quashing of the Information against him before his arraignment. People
v. Hernandez

Tests on Entrapment Case

1. Objective test — whether or not the conduct of the police officer was likely to induce a
normally law-abiding person, other than the one who is ready and willing, to commit the
offense
2. Subjective test — also known as the Predisposition Test; it emphasizes the accused’s
propensity to commit the offense rather than the officer’s misconduct
Section 21: No person shall be twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense. If
an act is punished by a law and an ordinance, conviction or acquittal under either shall
constitute a bar to another prosecution for the same act.

Requisites for a valid defense of double jeopardy

1. A first jeopardy must have attached prior to the second
2. The first jeopardy must have terminated
3. The second jeopardy must be for the same offense as that in the first

Jeopardy attaches
1. Upon a good indictment or under a complaint or information sufficient in form and
substance to sustain a conviction
2. Before a competent court
3. After arraignment
4. After a valid plea

First jeopardy terminates

1. By acquittal
2. By final conviction
3. By dismissal without express consent of the accused
4. By “dismissal” on the merits

Exceptions to the general rule that dismissal or termination of the case after arraignment
and plea to a valid information shall be a bar to another prosecution (no double jeopardy)
1. If the dismissal is made upon motion, or with the express consent, of the
defendant/accused
2. The dismissal is not an acquittal or based upon consideration of the evidence or of the
merits of the case
3. The question to be passed upon by the appellate court is purely legal so that should the
dismissal be found incorrect, the case would have to be remanded to the court of origin for
further proceedings, to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant

Circumstances when double jeopardy does not attach

a. If information does not charge any offense
b. If, upon pleading guilty, the accused presents evidence to mitigate, exempt or justify
him, and the court thereafter acquits him without entering a new plea of not guilty
c. If the information for an offense cognizable by the RTC is filed with the MTC, hence,
no competent jurisdiction
d. If a complaint filed for preliminary investigation is dismissed

Examples of termination of jeopardy

a. Dismissal based on violation of the right to a speedy trial where this amounts to acquittal
b. Dismissal based on a demurrer of evidence where it is a dismissal based on the merits
c. Dismissal based on motion of the prosecution, subsequent to a motion for reinvestigation
filed by the accused
d. Discharge of an accused to be a state witness which amounts to an acquittal
Decisions by military tribunals
Under military law, a decision of a military tribunal, be it of acquittal or of conviction, or
dismissal, is merely recommendatory and subject to review by the convening authority, the review
boards, and the reviewing authority. A military commission acts merely as a commissioner who
takes the evidence and reports thereon with his recommendation. Any form of recommendation
made by the commission does not amount to the termination of the case. Flores v. Enrile

When is the second offense charged the same as the first offense?
The Same Evidence Test:
whether the evidence needed in the one case will support a conviction in the other (general sense)
By virtue of Sec. 9 of Rule 117 of the Rules of Court (definition of “same offense”)
a. whether one offense is identical with the other
b. whether it is an attempt or frustration of the other
c. whether one offense necessarily includes or is necessarily included in the other

Exceptions to the requirement of sameness of offense

1. When one act violates two different statutes or two different provisions of a statute,
prosecution under one is not a bar to prosecution under the other. People v. Cabrera
2. Supervening facts

Supervening facts
a. When the second offense was not in existence at the time of the first prosecution, for the
simple reason that in such a case, there is no possibility for the accused, during the first
prosecution, to be convicted for an offense that was then inexistent
b. Where after the first prosecution, a new fact supervenes for which the defendant is
responsible, which changes the character of the offense and together with the facts existing
at the time, constitute a new and distinct offense, there is no double jeopardy
c. The graver offense developed due to a supervening fact arising from the same act or
omission constituting the former charge.
d. The facts constituting the graver offense became known or were discovered only after
the filing of the former information.
e. The plea of guilty to the lesser offense was made without the consent of the fiscal and
the offended party.

Finality of judgment
A judgment of acquittal is immediately final.

A judgment of conviction is final when the period for appeal has elapsed or when the
sentence has been totally or partially served or when the defendant has expressly waived his right
to appeal.

Effect of appeal by the accused/defendant

The accused waives his right to plead double jeopardy. The whole case will be open to
review by the appellate court. Such court may even increase the penalties imposed on the accused
by the trial court.
Cases/Doctrines
Dismissal for denial of the right to a speedy trial is a dismissal on the merits and amounts
to an acquittal. But when upon examination of the facts and the court find that the delays were
justifiable and the dismissal was upon the instance of the accused, there is no double jeopardy.
Almario v. CA

Verbal dismissal is not final until written and signed by the judge. Rivera Jr. v. People

The use of the word “provisional”, on the dismissal of the case based on denial of the right
to a speedy trial, does not change the legal effect of the dismissal. Esmena v. Pogoy

When the dismissal of the case constitutes abuse of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction, the dismissal, even if made on the merits, is invalid and is therefore no bar to a
reinstatement of the case. People v. Pablo

If the judgment of acquittal is void for having been given without jurisdiction, the judgment
cannot be a basis for a plea of double jeopardy. People v. CA

But if the facts could have been discovered by the prosecution but were not discovered
because of the prosecution’s incompetence, it would not be considered as a supervening event.