8/12/2019 Article 3 Section
1/2
The right of a man, together with his love-ones, is protected by
the Bill of Rights under Article 3, Section 2 of the Philippine
Constitution. It states that,The right of the people to be secure
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
issueexcept 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.As a general rule, before a police officer can arrest or
search a person, he must validly first secure a warrant of arrest
or search warrant. Without it, any evidence that can be obtained by
such shall become inadmissible evidence in court.Elements of a good
evidence It must be relevant It must be material It must be
competentRequisites for a valid warrant of arrest or search warrant
There should be probable cause It must be personally determined by
a judge It should be examined under oath or affirmation of the
complainant and the witnss he may produce. Place to be searched and
the persons or things to be seized should be particula, not
general.Only party affected may contest legality of seizure
effected by search warrants.O
fficers of certain corporations, from which documents, papers
and things were seized by means of search warrants, have no cause
of action to assail the legalityof the seizures because said
corporations have personalities distinct and separate from those of
said officers. The legality of a seizure can be contested onlyby
the party whose rights have been impaired thereby. The objection to
an unlawful search is purely personal and cannot be availed of by
third parties.When illegally seized evidence is admissible.Officers
of certain corporations cannot validly object to the use in
evidence against them of the documents, papersand things seized
from the offices and premises of the corporations since the right
to object to their admission in evidence belongs exclusively to the
corporations, to which the seized effects belong, and may not be
invoked by the corporate officers in proceedings against them in
their individual capacity.Requisites for issuing search
warrants.The Constitution provides that no warrant
shall issue but upon probable cause, to be determined by the
judge, and that thewarrant shall particularly describe the things
to be seized.General search warrants.Search warrants, issued upon
applications stating that the natural and juridical persons therein
named had committed a violation of Central Bank laws, tariff and
customs laws, Tax Code and Revised Penal Code do not satisfy the
constitutional requirements because no specific offense had been
alleged in said applications. It was impossible for the judges, who
issued the warrants, to have found the existence of probable cause,
which presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the
party against whom it is sought has performedparticular acts or
committed specific omissions in violation of a specific
penalprovision.Why general warrants are outlawed.General search
warrants are outlawed because they place the sanctity of the
domicile and the privacy of communication and corre
spondence at the mercy of the whims, caprice or passion of peace
officers.Provision of Revised Rules of Court.To prevent the
issuance of general warrants,the Supreme Court amended the Old
Rules of Court by providing in the Revised Rules of Court that no
search warrant shall issue for more than one specific
offense.Warrants not describing particularly the things to be
seized.Search warrants authorizing the seizure of books of accounts
and records showing all the business transactionsof certain
persons, regardless of whether the transactions were legal or
illegal, contravene the explicit command of the Bill of Rights that
the thingsto be seized should be particularly described and defeat
its major objective ofeliminating general warrants. [Stonehill vs.
Diokno, 20 SCRA 383(1967)]
