A.

The Exclusionary Rule Principle - the principle which

mandates that evidence obtained from an illegal arrest,
unreasonable search or coercive investigation, or in
violation of a particular law, must be excluded from the
trial and will not be admitted as evidence.

1. The principle judges the admissibility of evidence based on

HOW the evidence is obtained or acquired and not WHAT the
evidence proves.    

 2. The principle is to be applied only if it is so expressly

provided for by the constitution or by a particular law. Even if
the manner of obtaining the evidence is in violation of a certain
law but the law does not declare that the evidence is
inadmissible, then such evidence will be admissible.

Example: The accused claimed that information about his bank

accounts i.e. trust funds, was obtained in violation of the
Secrecy of Bank Deposits Law ( R.A. 1405) and moved to have them
be excluded as evidence. HELD: R.A. 1405 nowhere provides that an
unlawful examination of bank accounts shall render the evidence
there from inadmissible in evidence. If Congress has both
established a right and provided exclusive remedies for its
violation, the court would encroaching upon the prerogatives of
congress if it authorizes a remedy not provided for by statute.
Absent a specific reference to an exclusionary rule, it is not
appropriate for the courts to read such a provision into the act.
( Ejercito vs. Sandiganbayan, 509 SCRA 190, Nov. 30, 2006).

3. The phrase is attributed to Justice Felix Frankfurter of the

U.S. Supreme and has its biblical reference to Mathew 7: 17-20.

 
B. The Doctrine of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree

 
1. Evidence will be excluded if it was gained through evidence
uncovered in an illegal arrest, unreasonable search or coercive
interrogation, or violation of a particular exclusionary law.

2. It is an offshoot of the Exclusionary Rule which applies to

primary evidence. The doctrine applies only to secondary or
derivative evidence. There must first be a primary evidence which
is determined to have been illegally obtained then secondary
evidence is obtained because of the primary evidence. Since the
primary evidence is inadmissible, any secondary evidence
discovered or obtained because of it may not also be used.

a. The poisonous tree is the evidence seized in an illegal

arrest, search or interrogation. The fruit of this poisonous tree
is evidence discovered because of knowledge gained from the first
illegal search, arrest, or interrogation or violation of a law.

b. It is based on the principle that evidence illegally obtained

by the state should not be used to gain other evidence because
the original illegally obtained evidence taints all those
subsequently obtained.   

C Illustrations:

A suspect as forced to make a confession where he revealed he

took shabu from the room of X. Based on this knowledge the police
went to the house of X and with the consent of X, searched his
room and found the shabu. The confession is inadmissible because
of the exclusionary. It is the poisoned tree. The shabu is
inadmissible because knowledge of its existence was based on the
confession. It is the fruit.

D. Exceptions to the two principles- when evidence is still

admissible despite the commission of an illegal arrest, search or
interrogation, or violation of a particular exclusionary law. 
 

1. Under the Doctrine of Inevitable Discovery- Evidence is

admissible even if obtained through an unlawful arrest, search,
interrogation, or violation of an exclusionary law, if it can be
established, to a very high degree of probability, that normal
police investigation would have inevitably led to the discovery
of the evidence  

2. Independent Source Doctrine- evidence is admissible if

knowledge of the evidence is gained from a separate or
independent source that is completely unrelated to the illegal
act of the law enforcers.   

3. Attentuation Doctrine: evidence maybe suppressed only if there

is a clear causal connection between the illegal police action
and the evidence. Or, that the chain of causation between the
illegal action and the tainted evidence is too attenuated i.e too
thin, weak, decreased or fragile. This takes into consideration
the following factors:

a). The time period between the illegal arrest and the ensuing
confession or consented search

b). The presence of intervening factors or events

c). The purpose and flagrancy of the official misconduct

    E. Remedy : By filing a Motion to Suppress the Evidence

III. Evidence Excluded by the Constitution

 
A. Under Article III of the Constitution the following evidence
are inadmissible

1. evidence obtained in violation of the right against

unreasonable search and seizure

2. evidence obtained in violation of the privacy of communication

and correspondence, except upon lawful order of the court or when
public safety or order requires otherwise  

3. evidence consisting of extra-judicial confessions which are

uncounselled, or when the confessant was not properly informed of
his constitutional rights, or when the confession was coerced 

4. evidence obtained in violation of  the right against self-

incrimination

B. Principles:

1. The exclusionary rule in all the foregoing provisions is TOTAL

in that the inadmissibility or incompetency applies to all cases,
whether civil criminal or administrative, and for all purposes.

2. The incompetency applies only if the evidence was obtained by

law enforcers or other authorized agencies of the government. It
does not apply if the evidence was obtained by private persons
such as private security personnel or private detectives even if
they perform functions similar to the police whenever a crime was
committed.  

a).  Thus evidence obtained by the following are not covered by

the constitutional  provisions: (i) the security personnel or
house detectives of hotels or commercial establishments or
schools (ii) private security agencies even if they are guarding
public or government buildings/offices (iii) employers and their
agents.

 
It will be some other appropriate principle on the admissibility
of evidence which will govern. 

b). However, by way of exception, the rule of incompetency

applies if what are involved are the private correspondence of an
individual. In Zulueta vs. CA ( Feb. 1986) it was held that
pictures and love letters proving the infidelity of the husband,
kept by him in his private clinic, taken by the wife without the
knowledge of the husband, are inadmissible as evidence for being
obtained in violation of the husband’s privacy of communication
and correspondence.

“ The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify anyone

of them breaking the drawers and cabinet of the other and
ransacking them for any telltale evidence of marital infidelity.
A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his or her
integrity or his right to privacy as an individual and the
constitutional protection is available to him or her”

    

3. Secondary evidence resulting from a violation of the foregoing

provisions is inadmissible under the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree
Doctrine.