Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Searches and Seizures3
Searches and Seizures3
Examination of applicant
Rule 126, section 4 of the rules of court:
The judge before issuing the warrant,
must personally examine in the form of
searching questions and answers, in
writing and under oath the complainant
and any witnesses he may produce on
facts personally known to them, and
attach to the record their sworn
statements together with any affidavits
submitted"--- the same requirement is to
be observed in the issuance of warrant
of arrest.
The evidence differed by the
complainant and his witnesses should be
based on their own personal knowledge
and not on mere information of belief.
Not allowed:
Hearsay- It must be based on
mere information or belief.
Hearsay are those facts which a
person derives not from his own
perception but from perception of
others
Alvarez v CFI
The search and seizure of books,
documents, receipts, lists chits, and
other papers used by him in connection
People v Marti
Right against unreasonable operates
only against the state not when the
search is made by a private person.
Steele v U.S. 267 US 498
A description of the placw to be
searched is sufficient if the officer with
the warrant can, with reasonable effort,
ascertain and identify the place
intended.
Bache & Co v Ruiz
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.
Stonehill v Diokno
The evidence obtained even though
contrabaned can not be used if it was
obtained in unreasonable search and
seizures.(Exclusionary Rule)
Bagalihog v Fernandez and Roan v
Gonzales
The illegally seized item shall be
returned if it is not a prohibited object. If
it is subject of litigation, it will remain
custodia legis until the case is
terminated.
Del Rosario v People
Seizure is limited to those items
particularly described in a valid search
Search Warrant
Warrant of Arrest
-Taking into custody a person in
order to be subject to interview
Probable cause(WON the offense was
committed)
Such facts and circumstances which
would lead a reasonably discrete and
prudent man to believe that an offense
has been committed by the person
sought to be arrested. ( Webb v De Leon
Determination of probable cause
personally by the judge
The judge is not required to personally
examine the complainant and the
witnesses. Following established doctrine
and procedure, he shall:
A. Personally evaluate the report and the
supporting documents submitted by the
fiscal regarding the existence of
probable cause and, on the basis
thereof, issue a warrant of arrest; or
B. If on the basis thereof he finds no
probable cause, he may disregard the
Probable cause
Such facts ans circumstances which
would lead a reasonably discreet and
prudent man to believe that an offense
has to been committed And That the
objects sought in connection with the
offense are in the place sought to be
searched(Burgos v Chief of Staff
Determination of probable cause
personally by the judge
The determination of probable cause
depends to a large extent upon the
finding /opinion of the judge who
conducted the required examination of
the applicant and the witnesses (Kho v
judge Makalintal)
Description of property
The description of property to be seized
need not to be technically accurate nor
necessarily precise, and its nature will
necessarily vary according to whether
the identity of the property or its
character is a matter of concern;it is
required to be specific only in so far as
the circumstances will allow(Kho v Judge
Makalintal)
Procedure:
Same as warrant of arrest except
that: in a search warrant the judge cant
rely on the findings of the fiscal there
must be a personal examination by a
judge on the witnesses or pieces of
evidence.
*from atty Dacanay's lecture
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Article III Section 4
No law shall be passed abridging the freedom of speech, of expression, or of the
press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the
government for redress of grievances.
Freedom of expression includes:
Chavez v Gonzales
1. Free speech and Free press
Department of Justice (DOJ) Secretary
2. Freedom of Assembly
3. Freedom of petition
4. Freedom of Religion
5. Right of association or the right to
form association,
6. Right to Religious Freedom
7. Right to be silent (cruz)
Elements/ aspects of freedom of
expression
1. Freedom from censorship or prior
restraint
- refers to official governemental
restrictions on the press or other forms
of expression in advance of actual
publication or dissemination.
-even before the speech is made it is
prohibited(Atty. Dakanay)
-Prior restraint refers to official
governmental restrictions on the press
or other forms of expression in advance
of actual publication or dissemination.
(Chavez v Gonzales)
Examples of prior restraint
A. System licensing administered by an
executive officer
B. Judicial prior restraint- Injunction
against publication
C. License taxes measured by gross
receipts for the privilege of engaging in
the business of advertising in any
newspaper
Exceptions( Subjects where prior
restraint is permitted)
A. Movies,television and radio broadcast
censorship in view of its access to
numerous people, including the young
who must be insulted from the
prejudicial effects of unprotected speech
B. Pornography
C. False or misleading Commercial
Statement
D. Advocacy of of imminent lawless
action
E. Press statement made by persons, for
and on behalf of the government,
uttered while in the exercise of their
official functions
F. Danger to national security
*right of impartial trial of accused
prevails over freedom of press
Distinction of Restraint
Content-Based Regulations(Chavez v
Gonzales)
content-based restraint or censorship,
i.e., the restriction is based on the
subject matter of the utterance or
speech.
a governmental action that restricts
freedom of speech or of the press based
on content is given the strictest scrutiny
in light of its inherent and invasive
impact. Only when the challenged act
has overcome the clear and present
danger rule will it pass constitutional
muster, 65 with the government having
the burden of overcoming the presumed
unconstitutionality.
Unless the government can overthrow
this presumption, the content-based
restraint will be struck down
content-based restrictions, the
government must also show the type of
harm the speech sought to be restrained
would bring about especially the
gravity and the imminence of the
threatened harm otherwise the prior
restraint will be invalid. Prior restraint on
speech based on its content cannot be
justified by hypothetical fears, "but only
by showing a substantive and imminent
evil that has taken the life of a reality
already on ground."
bears a heavy presumption of invalidity
and is measured against the clear and
present danger rule
American Communication
Association v Douds
The US supreme court applied, in liue of
the clear and present danger rule, a
different test to determine the validity of
a state requiring non-Communist
affidavits of labor union officials. This
was the balancing test:
When particular conduct is
US V BUSTOS
Facts:
In the latter part of 1915, numerous
citizens of the Province of Pampanga
assembled, then prepared and signed a
petition to the Executive Secretary, and
five individuals signed affidavits,
charging Roman Punsalan, justice of the
peace of Macabebe and Masantol,
Pampanga, with malfeasance in office
and asking for his removal. The
complainants charged that the justice of
the peace solicited bribe money in
consideration of favorable decisions. The
Executive Secretary referred the papers
to the judge of first instance of the
district. The judge of first instance, after
investigation, recommended to the
Governor-General that the justice of the
peace be removed from office. After
filing a motion for new trial, the judge of
first instance ordered the suppression of
the charges and acquitted the justice of
the peace of the same. Criminal action
was then begun against the petitioners,
now become the defendants, charging
that portions of the petition presented to
the Executive Secretary were libelous.
The trial court found thirty-two of the
defendants guilty and sentenced each of
them to pay a nominal fine. The case
was elevated to the Supreme Court for
review of the evidence.
Held:The interests of society and the
Freedom of Expression.
Held: The court finds that the closure of
the Radio Station in 1980 as null and
void. The absence of a hearing is a
violation of Constitutional Rights. The
primary requirements in administrative
proceedings are laid down in the case of
Ang Tibay v. Court of Industrial Relation
(69 Phil.635). The Ang Tibay Doctrine
should be followed before any broadcast
station may be closed. The Ang Tibay
Doctrine provides the following
requirements:
(1) The right to hearing, includes the
right to present ones case and submit
evidence presented.
(2) The tribunal must consider the
evidence presented
(3) The decision must have something to
support itself.
(4) Evidence must be substantial
(reasonable evidence that is adequate to
support conclusion)
(5) Decision must be based on the
evidence presented at hearing
(6) The tribunal body must act on its own
independent consideration of law and
facts and not simply accept
subordinates views
(7) Court must render decision in such a
manner that the proceeding can know
the various issued involved and reasons
for decisions rendered.
The court stresses that while there is no
controlling and precise definition of Due
Ledesma v CA
The rule on privileged communication is
that a communication made in good
faith on any subject matter in which the
communicator has an interest, or
concerning which he has a duty, is
Lawful Assembly
-Mayors cannot prohibit, they can only
regulate
Rules on assembly and petition:
1.The applicants for a permit to hold an
assembly should inform the licensing
authority of the date, the public place
where and the time when it will take
place
2.Such application should be filed well
ahead in time to enable the public
official concerned to appraise whether
there may be valid objections to the
grant of the permit or to its grant but at
another public place. It is an
indispensable condition to such refusal
or modification that the clear and
present danger test be the standard for
the decision reached.
3.Thereafter, his decision, whether
favorable or adverse, must be
transmitted to them at the earliest
opportunity. Thus if so minded, then, can
have recourse to the proper judicial
authority.
Texas v johnson
Burning of flag constitutes a symbolic
speech
Libel
Defenses:
1. Truth
2. Elements
3. Privileged communication- include
pleadings in the court
libel is defined as a public and malicious
imputation of a crime, or of a vice or
defect, real or imaginary, or any act,
omission, condition, status or
circumstance tending to discredit or
cause the dishonor or contempt of a
natural or juridical person, or to blacken
the memory of one who is dead. Thus,
the elements of libel are: (a) imputation
of a discreditable act or condition to
another; (b) publication of the
imputation; (c) identity of the person
defamed; and, (d) existence of malice.
Right to association
Embraced in the frreedom of expression
because it can be used as vehicle for
expressing of views that has a bearing
on public welfare
The constitutional right to association
does not preclude the imposition of
relevant qualificatiob for membership in
any organization
FREEDOM OF RELIGION
Article III, Section 5
No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof. The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and
worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious
ISSUE:
Whether or not Escritors
religious belief and practice should
warrant her claim of religious freedom
under Article III, Section 5 of the
Constitution.
HELD:
The administrative complaint
was dismissed. The OSG categorically
concedes that the sincerity and
centrality of Escritors claimed religious
belief and practice are beyond serious
doubt. Her request to be exempt from
attending the flag ceremony on the
ground of the Jehovahs Witnesses
contrary belief and practice was duly
noted. The OSG failed to demonstrate
the gravest abuses, endangering
paramount interests which could limit
or override Escritors fundamental right
to religious freedom.
Held:
No. Religious freedom is a fundamental
right which is entitled to the highest
priority and the amplest protection
among human rights, for it involves the
relationship of man to his Creator. The
right to religious profession and worship
has a two-fold aspect, vis., freedom to
believe and freedom to act on one's
belief. The first is absolute as long as the
belief is confined within the realm of
thought. The second is subject to
regulation where the belief is translated
into external acts that affect the public
welfare. Petitioners stress, however, that
while they do not take part in the
compulsory flag ceremony, they do not
engage in "external acts" or behavior
that would offend their countrymen who
believe in expressing their love of
country through the observance of the
flag ceremony. The sole justification for a
prior restraint or limitation on the
exercise of religious freedom is the
existence of a grave and present danger
of a character both grave and imminent,
of a serious evil to public safety, public
FREEDOM OF RELIGION