Bill of Rights - Article 2: Right against Unreasonable Arrest, Searches, and Seizures Flashcards
Political Law 2018
XVI
Five foreign nationals arrived at the NAIA from Hong Kong. After retrieving their checked-in luggage, they placed all their bags in one pushcart and proceeded to Express Lane 5. They were instructed to place their luggage on the examiner’s table for inspection.
The examiner found brown-colored boxes, similar in size to powdered milk boxes, underneath the clothes inside the foreigners’ bags. The examiner discovered white crystalline substances inside the boxes that he inspected and proceeded to bundle all of the boxes by putting masking tape around them. He thereafter handed the boxes over to Bureau of Customs agents. The agents called out the names of the foreigners one by one and ordered them to sign their names on the masking tape placed on the boxes recovered from their respective bags. The contents of the boxes were thereafter subjected to tests which confirmed that the substance was shabu.
Can the shabu found inside the boxes be admitted in evidence against the five foreigners for the charge of illegal possession of drugs in violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002?
Yes, shabu obtained in ordinary customs searches such as those done in an airport, which are a valid warrantless search, are admissible in evidence.
(Dela Cruz v. People, G.R. No. 209387, January 11, 2016)
Political Law 2018
XVI
Five foreign nationals arrived at the NAIA from Hong Kong. After retrieving their checked-in luggage, they placed all their bags in one pushcart and proceeded to Express Lane 5. They were instructed to place their luggage on the examiner’s table for inspection.
The examiner found brown-colored boxes, similar in size to powdered milk boxes, underneath the clothes inside the foreigners’ bags. The examiner discovered white crystalline substances inside the boxes that he inspected and proceeded to bundle all of the boxes by putting masking tape around them. He thereafter handed the boxes over to Bureau of Customs agents. The agents called out the names of the foreigners one by one and ordered them to sign their names on the masking tape placed on the boxes recovered from their respective bags. The contents of the boxes were thereafter subjected to tests which confirmed that the substance was shabu.
Can the shabu found inside the boxes be admitted in evidence against the five foreigners for the charge of illegal possession of drugs in violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002?
(alternative answer)
No, those boxes containing shabu are inadmissible evidence against them.
The signatures of the accused on the boxes constitute a tacit admission of the crime charged and are tantamount to an uncounselled extrajudicial confession which is not sanctioned by the Bill of Rights (Sections 12(1) and 12(3), Article III, 1987 Constitution). They are, therefore, inadmissible as evidence for any admission wrung from them in violation of their constitutional rights is inadmissible against them. The fact that all accused were foreign nationals does not preclude application of the exclusionary rule because the constitutional guarantees embodied in the Bill of Rights are given and extend all persons, both aliens and citizens (People v. Wong Chuen Ming, G.R. Nos. 112801-112811, April 12, 1996).
Political Law 2018
XVIII
Two police teams monitored the payment of ransom in a kidnapping case.
The bag containing the ransom money was placed inside an unlocked trunk of a car which was parked at the Angola Commercial Center in Mandaluyong City.
The first police team, stationed in an area near where the car was parked, witnessed the retrieval by the kidnappers of the bag from the unlocked trunk. The kidnappers thereafter boarded their car and proceeded towards the direction of Amorsolo St. in Makati City where the second police team was waiting.
Upon confirmation by radio report from the first police team that the kidnappers were heading towards their direction, the second police team proceeded to conduct surveillance on the car of the kidnappers, eventually saw it enter Ayala Commercial Center in Makati City, and the police team finally blocked it when it slowed down. The members of the second police team approached the vehicle and proceeded to arrest the kidnappers.
Is the warrantless arrest of the kidnappers by the second police team lawful?
The warrantless arrest is lawful.
There are two requirements before a warrantless arrest can be effected under Section 5(b), Rule 113, Rules of Court:
(1) An offense has just been committed; and
(2) The person making the arrest has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.
Both requirements are present in the instant case. The first police team present in the Angola Commercial Center was able to witness the pay-off which effectively consummated the crime of kidnapping. Its team members all saw the kidnappers take the money form the car trunk. Such knowledge was then relayed to other police officers comprising the second police team stationed in Amorsolo St. where the kidnappers were expected to pass.
It is sufficient for the arresting team that they were monitoring the pay-off for a number of hours long enough for them to be informed as to who the kidnappers were. This is equivalent to personal knowledge based on probable cause (People v. Uyboco, G.R. No. 178039, January 19, 2011).
Political Law 2016
VI
Pornographic materials in the form of tabloids, magazines and other printed materials, proliferate and are being sold openly in the streets of Masaya City. The City Mayor organized a task force which confiscated these materials. He then ordered that the materials be burned in public. Dominador, publisher of the magazine, “Plaything”, filed a suit, raising the following constitutional issues:
(a) the confiscation of the materials constituted an illegal search and seizure, because the same was done without a valid search warrant; and
(b) the confiscation, as well as the proposed destruction of the materials, is a denial of the right to disseminate information, and thus, violates the constitutional right to freedom of expression.
Is either or both contentions proper? Explain your answer.
(a) The confiscation of materials constituted an illegal search and seizure, because it was done without a valid search warrant. It cannot be justified as a valid warrantless search and seizure, because such search and seizure must have been an incident of a lawful arrest. There was no lawful arrest (Pita v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 80806, October 5, 1989).
(b) The argument of Dominador that pornographic materials are protected by the constitutional right to freedom of expression is erroneous. Obscenity is not protected expression (Fernando v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159751, December 6, 2006). Section 2 of the Presidential Decree No. 969 requires the forfeiture and destruction of pornographic materials (Nograles v. People, G.R. No. 191080, November 21, 2011).
Political Law 2016
VII
Ernesto, a minor, while driving a motor vehicle, was stopped at a mobile checkpoint. Noticing that Ernesto is a minor, SPOl Jojo asked Ernesto to exhibit his driver’s license but Ernesto failed to produce it. SPOI Jojo requested Ernesto to alight from the vehicle and the latter acceded. Upon observing a bulge in the pants of Ernesto, the policeman frisked him and found an unlicensed .22-caliber pistol inside Ernesto’s right pocket. Ernesto was arrested, detained and charged. At the trial, Ernesto, through his lawyer, argued that, policemen at mobile checkpoints are empowered to conduct nothing more than a ‘‘visual search”. They cannot order the persons riding the vehicle to alight. They cannot frisk, or conduct a body search of the driver or the passengers of the vehicle.
Ernesto’s lawyer thus posited that:
(a) The search conducted in violation of the Constitution and established jurisprudence was an illegal search; thus, the gun which was seized in the course of an illegal search is the “fruit of the poisonous tree” and is inadmissible in evidence.
(b) The arrest made as a consequence of the invalid search was likewise illegal, because an unlawful act (the search) cannot be made the basis of a lawful arrest.
Rule on the correctness of the foregoing arguments, with reasons.
(a) The warrantless search of motor vehicles at checkpoints should be limited to a visual search. Its occupants should not be subjected to a body search (Aniag, Jr. v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 104961, October 7, 1994).
The “stop-and-frisk rule” applies when a police officer observes suspicious activity or unusual activity which may lead him to believe that a criminal may be afoot. The “stop and frisk” is merely a limited protective search of outer clothing for weapons (Luz v. People, G.R. No. 197788, February 29, 2012).
(b) Since there was no valid warrantless search, the warrantless arrest was also illegal. The unlicensed .22 caliber pistol is inadmissible in evidence (Luz v. People, G.R. No. 197788, February 29, 2012).
Political Law 2015
XVIII
Around 12:00 midnight, a team of police officers was on routine patrol in Barangay Makatarungan when it noticed an open delivery van neatly covered with banana leaves. Believing that the van was loaded with contraband, the team leader flagged down the vehicle which was driven by Hades. He inquired from Hades what was loaded on the van. Hades just gave the police officer a blank stare and started to perspire profusely. The police officers then told Hades that they will look inside the vehicle. Hades did not make any reply. The police officers then lifted the banana leaves and saw several boxes. They opened the boxes and discovered several kilos of shabu inside. Hades was charged with illegal possession of illegal drugs. After due proceedings, he was convicted by the trial court. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction.
In his final bid for exoneration, Hades went to the Supreme Court claiming that his constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures was violated when the police officers searched his vehicle without a warrant; that the shabu confiscated from him is thus inadmissible in evidence; and that there being no evidence against him, he is entitled to an acquittal.
For its part, the People of the Philippines maintains that the case of Hades involved a consented warrantless search which is legally recognized. The People adverts to the fact that Hades did not offer any protest when the police officers asked him if they could look inside the vehicle. Thus, any evidence obtained in the course thereof is admissible in evidence.
Whose claim is correct? Explain.
The warrantless search is illegal. There was no probable cause to search the van. The shabu was not immediately apparent. It was discovered only after they opened the boxes. The mere passive silence of Hades did not constitute consent to the warrantless search (Caballes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 163108, February 23, 2005).
