Exclusionary Rule | Arrests, Searches, and Seizures | THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Exclusionary Rule under the Bill of Rights: Arrests, Searches, and Seizures

The Exclusionary Rule is a crucial principle in Philippine law, enshrined in Section 3(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution, which forms part of the Bill of Rights. This rule is intricately related to the rights against unreasonable arrests, searches, and seizures under Section 2, Article III. The rule provides a remedy to individuals whose rights have been violated by unlawful searches and seizures, by excluding illegally obtained evidence from being admitted in court.

Constitutional Basis

• Section 3(2), Article III of the 1987 Constitution states:

  "Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding."

This constitutional provision anchors the Exclusionary Rule in the Philippine legal system. The “preceding section” refers to Section 2, Article III, which provides the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature.

Purpose and Rationale of the Exclusionary Rule

The Exclusionary Rule serves a dual purpose:

1. Deterrence – To deter law enforcement officers from conducting illegal searches and seizures, knowing that any evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution will be inadmissible in court.
2. Protection of Constitutional Rights – To ensure that the fundamental right to privacy and due process is respected and safeguarded against abuse by the government or its agents.

The rule is based on the principle that constitutional rights must be given primacy over the government's interest in prosecuting offenders. It ensures that the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights are meaningful, as the threat of exclusion acts as a sanction against unlawful governmental conduct.

Application of the Exclusionary Rule

The Exclusionary Rule operates in the following manner:

• Evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures, such as those done without a valid warrant or an applicable exception, is inadmissible in court.
• The inadmissibility applies to both direct evidence (e.g., drugs or firearms found during an illegal search) and derivative evidence (commonly referred to as “fruits of the poisonous tree,” such as confessions made as a result of an illegal search or seizure).

The rule applies to all criminal and civil proceedings where such evidence is sought to be introduced.

Grounds for Exclusion

1. Illegal Search and Seizure – If law enforcement officers conduct a search or seizure without a warrant, or under a defective or invalid warrant, the resulting evidence will be excluded.
2. Lack of Probable Cause – If a search warrant was issued without probable cause, the evidence obtained pursuant to that warrant is inadmissible.
3. Warrantless Searches Not Falling Under Exceptions – Warrantless searches and seizures are generally unreasonable unless they fall under specific, well-delineated exceptions.

Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule: The Good Faith Exception

In Philippine jurisprudence, there is generally no "good faith exception" to the Exclusionary Rule, unlike in some jurisdictions like the United States. The Philippine Supreme Court has consistently held that the Exclusionary Rule is absolute—evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution is inadmissible, regardless of the good faith of the law enforcement officers. In cases like People v. Mamaril (1993) and People v. Compacion (1994), the Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights cannot be allowed under any circumstances.

Permissible Warrantless Searches

While the Exclusionary Rule applies strictly, Philippine law recognizes specific exceptions where searches and seizures may be conducted without a warrant and the evidence obtained may still be admissible. These include:

1. Search incident to a lawful arrest – A person lawfully arrested may be searched for weapons or evidence that may have been used in the commission of a crime.
2. Plain view doctrine – If an officer is lawfully in a position to view an object, and its incriminating character is immediately apparent, it can be seized without a warrant.
3. Consented searches – Evidence obtained with the voluntary consent of the person being searched is admissible.
4. Stop and frisk – A limited search for weapons if there is a reasonable belief that the person is armed and dangerous (Terry v. Ohio doctrine).
5. Customs searches – Searches conducted by customs officials at borders and ports of entry.
6. Checkpoints – Roadblocks or checkpoints, provided they are established for a specific purpose, such as the enforcement of liquor bans, curfews, or traffic regulations.

"Fruits of the Poisonous Tree" Doctrine

Under this doctrine, any evidence derived from an illegal search or seizure is also inadmissible in court. For example, if law enforcement illegally seizes drugs from a suspect and subsequently, based on that seizure, extracts a confession, both the drugs and the confession are inadmissible as evidence. This rule extends the Exclusionary Rule to cover both direct and indirect evidence obtained as a result of the constitutional violation.

In Stonehill v. Diokno (1967), the Supreme Court emphasized that illegally seized evidence, as well as the fruits derived from such evidence, must be excluded to prevent the erosion of constitutional rights.

Suppression of Illegally Seized Evidence

The proper remedy for a violation of the Exclusionary Rule is to move for the suppression of the evidence. The defense must file a motion to suppress in the trial court, arguing that the evidence was obtained in violation of constitutional rights. Once the court grants the motion, the evidence is excluded and cannot be used by the prosecution.

Limitations of the Exclusionary Rule

1. Standing – The person invoking the Exclusionary Rule must have standing, meaning that they must have been the direct victim of the unconstitutional act. Only those whose rights were directly violated by the illegal search or seizure can challenge the admissibility of the evidence.
2. Impeachment Exception – In rare instances, evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights may be used to impeach the credibility of a witness, though not to establish guilt.

Case Law: The Exclusionary Rule in Philippine Jurisprudence

The Philippine Supreme Court has continuously reinforced the Exclusionary Rule in various landmark cases:

1. Stonehill v. Diokno (1967) – This is the leading case on the application of the Exclusionary Rule in the Philippines. The Court ruled that evidence obtained through unlawful searches and seizures is inadmissible in any proceeding. This case established the doctrine of the "fruits of the poisonous tree" in the Philippine setting.

2. People v. Burgos (1986) – The Supreme Court excluded evidence obtained in a warrantless arrest that was not based on probable cause, thereby emphasizing the importance of the Exclusionary Rule in protecting individual liberties.

3. People v. Alicando (1995) – The Court ruled that a confession obtained as a result of an illegal arrest is inadmissible, as it is a fruit of the illegal seizure.

4. People v. Compacion (1994) – Reiterating the strict application of the Exclusionary Rule, the Court declared that even if the officers acted in good faith, the evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution remains inadmissible.

Conclusion

The Exclusionary Rule is a vital safeguard in Philippine law against abuses of power by law enforcement officers. It ensures that evidence obtained through unconstitutional means is excluded from trial, thereby protecting the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. This rule applies strictly and without exception, underscoring the importance of constitutional due process in the Philippine justice system.

Warrantless Arrests and Searches | Arrests, Searches, and Seizures | THE BILL OF RIGHTS

POLITICAL LAW AND PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW > XII. THE BILL OF RIGHTS > D. Arrests, Searches, and Seizures > 2. Warrantless Arrests and Searches

Constitutional Basis and Legal Framework

Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 2, guarantees the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. No search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause determined personally by the judge after examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses.

However, this provision allows exceptions, permitting warrantless arrests and searches in certain circumstances. The Philippine legal system recognizes the necessity of these exceptions to balance individual rights and the State's interest in maintaining peace, order, and public safety.

Warrantless Arrests (Arrest Without a Warrant)

Under Rule 113, Section 5 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, warrantless arrests are permissible in the following instances:

1. In Flagrante Delicto (Arrest of a Person Committing a Crime)

   • A peace officer or a private person may arrest someone without a warrant when, in their presence, the person is committing or attempting to commit a crime. This is known as an in flagrante delicto arrest.
   • Requirements:
     • The officer must personally witness the commission of the crime.
     • The crime must be ongoing or immediate.
     • Mere suspicion or hearsay information is insufficient.

   Case law example: In People v. Mariacos, the arrest of the accused was upheld because the police officers witnessed the accused in actual possession of illegal drugs, satisfying the in flagrante delicto requirement.

2. Hot Pursuit Arrest

   • A peace officer or private person may arrest a person without a warrant when an offense has just been committed and they have probable cause to believe, based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances, that the person to be arrested has committed it.
   • Key Elements:
     • The crime must have been freshly committed.
     • There must be probable cause—a reasonable belief, based on factual circumstances, that the person committed the crime.
     • Fresh pursuit is required, meaning the arrest should follow promptly after the offense.

   Case law example: In People v. Del Castillo, the Supreme Court held that the arrest was lawful because the officers had probable cause based on the eyewitness's account, leading to the immediate arrest of the suspect.

3. Escapee or Fugitive from Justice

   • A warrantless arrest is also allowed if the person to be arrested is an escaped prisoner—one who has escaped from a penal institution or is a fugitive from justice. In this scenario, the arresting officer may apprehend the escapee without a warrant to prevent further evasion of justice.

Warrantless Searches

Warrantless searches are generally prohibited under the Constitution unless falling under established exceptions recognized in Philippine jurisprudence. The Supreme Court has laid out specific situations where searches without warrants are deemed reasonable and lawful.

1. Search Incident to Lawful Arrest

   • A search may be conducted without a warrant if it is incident to a lawful arrest, meaning the search is made contemporaneously with the arrest of the person.
   • The scope of this search is limited to the person of the arrestee and the immediate surroundings within their reach.
   • Purpose: To ensure the safety of the arresting officers and prevent the concealment or destruction of evidence.

   Case law example: In People v. Chua Ho San, the search was held valid because it was conducted immediately following a lawful arrest for illegal possession of firearms.

2. Plain View Doctrine

   • Objects that are in plain view of an officer, who has a right to be in the position to have that view, may be seized without a warrant.
   • Requirements:
     • The officer must lawfully enter or be present in the place.
     • The item must be immediately recognizable as evidence of a crime.
     • The discovery must be inadvertent.

   Case law example: In People v. Evaristo, the seizure of marijuana in plain view was deemed valid, as it was inadvertently discovered during a lawful arrest.

3. Search of Moving Vehicles (Carroll Doctrine)

   • The search of a moving vehicle is an exception to the warrant requirement. Since vehicles can be easily moved, a search based on probable cause to believe the vehicle contains contraband or evidence of a crime is justified.
   • Probable Cause Requirement: There must be reasonable grounds for the officers to believe that the vehicle contains items subject to seizure.

   Case law example: In People v. Tuazon, the search of a vehicle based on a reliable tip and subsequent discovery of illegal drugs was deemed lawful due to the exigent circumstances of the case.

4. Consent Searches

   • A search may be conducted without a warrant if the person voluntarily consents to the search. The consent must be unequivocal, specific, and freely given without coercion or duress.
   • Key elements:
     • Consent must be given by someone who has authority over the premises or items to be searched.
     • The person must fully understand the right to refuse the search.

   Case law example: In People v. Cogaed, the consent to search the bus passenger's bag led to the lawful discovery of marijuana.

5. Stop and Frisk (Terry Search)

   • This is a limited warrantless search where law enforcement officers may stop and pat down a person on the street if there is reasonable suspicion that the individual is involved in criminal activity.
   • The search is limited to checking for weapons to ensure the officer's safety and is not a full-blown search for evidence.
   • Requirements:
     • The officer must have a reasonable suspicion based on specific and articulable facts.
     • The search must be minimally intrusive.

   Case law example: In People v. Sy Chua, a stop-and-frisk procedure was upheld because the officers had reasonable suspicion that the accused was involved in criminal activity, and the frisk was limited to checking for weapons.

6. Customs and Border Searches

   • Searches conducted at immigration checkpoints, ports, or customs areas are exceptions to the warrant requirement, given the government's interest in regulating the entry and exit of goods and people.
   • Rationale: These searches are a necessary part of ensuring border security and preventing the importation of illegal goods.

   Case law example: In People v. Aminnudin, the warrantless search conducted by customs officials was upheld as part of their duties in regulating goods entering the country.

7. Checkpoints

   • Checkpoints are constitutionally permissible when justified by public safety and national security concerns. While not all searches at checkpoints require a warrant, they must still be reasonable and not overly intrusive.
   • Key elements:
     • The checkpoint must be for legitimate governmental purposes, such as controlling contraband or ensuring public safety.
     • The search must be limited to visual inspection unless there is probable cause to conduct a more thorough search.

   Case law example: In Valmonte v. de Villa, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of checkpoints, emphasizing that the intrusion should be minimal and should not arbitrarily target individuals.

Exclusionary Rule and the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine

Under the Exclusionary Rule enshrined in Article III, Section 3(2) of the Constitution, any evidence obtained in violation of a person's right against unreasonable searches and seizures is inadmissible in court. This rule extends to any derivative evidence obtained as a result of an illegal search or arrest, known as the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine.

Conclusion

While warrantless arrests and searches are exceptions to the general rule requiring a judicial warrant, they are closely scrutinized by courts to ensure adherence to constitutional rights. The State's duty to maintain law and order must be balanced with the individual's fundamental rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, and any deviation from these principles may result in the exclusion of evidence and dismissal of charges.

Requisites of a Valid Warrant | Arrests, Searches, and Seizures | THE BILL OF RIGHTS

Requisites of a Valid Warrant (Arrests, Searches, and Seizures)

Under the Bill of Rights (Article III, Section 2) of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. This section provides the constitutional guarantee that no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause to ensure the protection of individual liberties.

1. General Principle

No search or arrest shall be deemed valid unless it is carried out through the issuance of a warrant based on probable cause, determined by a judge. This is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution to prevent abuses by the State and to ensure due process.

A. Requisites of a Valid Arrest Warrant

1. Probable Cause

   • Definition: Probable cause refers to the existence of facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonably prudent person to believe that a crime has been committed and that the person to be arrested is probably guilty of the crime.
   • Judicial Determination: The probable cause for an arrest warrant must be personally determined by a judge after conducting a searching inquiry. This means that the judge must go beyond the mere submission of affidavits and documents by the complainant or law enforcement.
   • Basis: Probable cause must be based on evidence, such as testimonies or affidavits, and should not be based solely on hearsay.

2. Oath or Affirmation

   • The judge must base his or her finding of probable cause on evidence given under oath or affirmation. This ensures that the facts being relied upon are credible and trustworthy.

3. Particularity of Description

   • The arrest warrant must particularly describe the person to be arrested. The description must be sufficient to prevent mistaken identity or an overly broad execution of the warrant.
   • The specificity requirement ensures that the arrest is made against the correct individual and prevents law enforcement from detaining anyone arbitrarily.

4. Issuance by a Competent Authority (Judge)

   • Only a judge has the constitutional authority to issue a warrant of arrest. The judge must be acting within their jurisdiction when issuing the warrant. Any arrest warrant issued by a person who is not a judge, or a judge acting outside of their jurisdiction, is void and invalid.
   • The judge issuing the warrant must act impartially and independently in determining the existence of probable cause.

B. Requisites of a Valid Search Warrant

1. Probable Cause

   • Judicial Determination: Probable cause for a search warrant must also be personally determined by a judge. This includes the judge's inquiry into whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that evidence of a crime exists in the place to be searched or in the items to be seized.
   • Standard: The probable cause must be established based on factual circumstances that point to the existence of the items sought in connection with an offense.

2. Oath or Affirmation

   • Similar to an arrest warrant, the facts supporting the search warrant must be sworn to by a complainant or witness under oath or affirmation.

3. Particularity of Description

   • Place to be Searched: The search warrant must specifically identify the place to be searched. The description must be so clear that the officer executing the warrant can, with reasonable certainty, identify the location.
   • Objects to be Seized: The warrant must describe the things to be seized with particularity. General warrants, which fail to specify the items to be seized, are void because they give law enforcement unchecked power and discretion, violating the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches.

4. Issuance by a Competent Authority (Judge)

   • Only a judge may issue a search warrant, and it must be based on probable cause within the judge's territorial jurisdiction. Any search warrant issued outside of the jurisdiction of the issuing judge or without sufficient probable cause is invalid.

5. One Specific Offense

   • A search warrant can only be issued in connection with one specific offense. This requirement prevents the issuance of a "scattershot" warrant and ensures that the warrant is limited to items relating to one particular crime.

C. Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement

While warrants are generally required for arrests and searches, there are recognized exceptions under both the Constitution and Philippine jurisprudence:

1. Warrantless Arrests (Rule 113, Sec. 5 of the Rules of Court):

   • In Flagrante Delicto Arrest: An arrest made when the person to be arrested is caught in the act of committing a crime.
   • Hot Pursuit Arrest: An arrest made immediately after a crime has been committed, when the officer has probable cause to believe the person to be arrested committed the crime.
   • Escapee Arrest: An arrest without a warrant of a prisoner who has escaped from custody or while he/she is being transported to or from jail or while confined under a warrant.

2. Warrantless Searches:

   • Search Incident to a Lawful Arrest: A lawful arrest allows a limited search of the person and the immediate surroundings to ensure officer safety and prevent the destruction of evidence.
   • Plain View Doctrine: When an object is in plain view of an officer legally in a position to see the item, it can be seized without a warrant if it is immediately apparent that the object is evidence or contraband.
   • Consent Searches: A search is valid if the person voluntarily and knowingly consents to the search.
   • Stop and Frisk: A limited search (a pat-down of the outer clothing) based on reasonable suspicion that a person is armed and dangerous.
   • Customs Searches: Searches at borders and ports of entry for contraband or illegal goods may be conducted without a warrant.
   • Exigent Circumstances: Warrantless searches are allowed in emergency situations where obtaining a warrant is not practical, such as when there is an immediate threat to life or property, or when evidence is likely to be destroyed.

D. Invalid Warrants and their Consequences

1. General Warrants:

   • A general warrant is one that does not describe with particularity the place to be searched or the person or things to be seized. General warrants are unconstitutional because they allow for arbitrary searches and seizures.

2. Judicial Remedy:

   • If a search or arrest warrant is issued without probable cause or does not meet the constitutional requirements, the warrant can be quashed or nullified through a motion to quash before the proper court.

3. Exclusionary Rule (Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine):

   • Any evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures is inadmissible in court. This includes not only the primary evidence seized but also any further evidence derived from the illegal search or arrest.

4. Civil and Criminal Liabilities:

   • Law enforcement officers who conduct searches and arrests without a valid warrant or in violation of the exceptions may face civil and criminal liabilities. A person whose rights have been violated may file charges for damages under the Civil Code or criminal complaints under the Revised Penal Code.

Conclusion

The requisites of a valid arrest or search warrant emphasize judicial oversight, the necessity of probable cause, and the protection of individual rights. By adhering to these constitutional safeguards, the Philippine legal system upholds the balance between law enforcement needs and the protection of civil liberties.