What Is Liberty To Abode And The Right To Travel

1. WHAT IS LIBERTY TO ABODE AND THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL? Liberty to abode includes the right to choose one’s residence to leave it whenever one pleases, within the limits prescribed by law, to travel where one wills, and to return to his place of residence, except in the interest of national security, public safety, and health. 2. Sec. 2 of Art. III only prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. 3. Searches and seizures are unreasonable unless authorized by a validly issued search warrant or warrant of arrest. 4. The prohibition against illegal searches is directed only against the government and its agents tasked with law enforcement but not against private person (PP vs. Andre Marti, 193 SCRA 57, January 18, 1991). 5. A reasonable search is valid. It is not to be determined by a fix formula but it is to be resolved according to the facts of each (Valmonte vs. De Villa, Sept. 29, 1989). 6. Is every warrantless search an illegal search? No. the following are exceptions: → search made incidental to a valid arrest; → search of vehicles → seizures of goods concealed to avoid payment of customs duties or taxes; → seizure of evidence in plain view; and → when there is waiver of the right. 7. Checkpoints are not illegal per se. They are allowed under exceptional circumstances when the survivals of organized government are in great peril. Thus, when the situation clears and such grave perils are removed, check points are removed and they will have no reason to remain. 8. For as long as the vehicle is neither searched nor its occupants subjected to a body search, and the inspection of the vehicles is limited to a visual search, routine checks (implementing COMELEC gun ban) cannot be regarded as violation of an individuals right against unreasonable search (PP vs. Escano, January 28, 2000). 9. Routine search could be justified as a warrantless search of a moving vehicle if there is probable cause (Valmonte vs. De Villa).

10.What is the consequence of an invalid search or seizure or arrest? Any evidence obtained in such search is inadmissible for any purpose in III, section 3[2]). If the legally excluded from being considered by the is that the accused may be acquitted.

or seizure or arrest any proceeding (Art. obtained evidence is judge, the likelihood

11.The essential requisites of a valid warrant are: a. it must be issued upon probable cause. b. probable cause must be determined presumably by a judge. c. the issuing judge must examine under oath or affirmation the complainant and the witnesses he may produce. d. the warrant must particularly described the place to be searched and the person or things to be seized. 12. Probable cause for an arrest or for the issuance of a warrant of arrest would mean such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed by the person sought to be arrested. 13. Probable cause for a search would mean such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prevent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. 14.The military alleged that Burgos is in possession or has in his control printing equipment and other paraphernalia, news publications and other documents which were used and are all continuously used as means of committing the offense of submission. The SC said that the foregoing allegations are mere conclusions of law unsupported by particulars (Burgos vs. Chief of Staff 133 SCRA 800, 1984). 15.The master tapes of copyrighted films are necessary for the issuance of a search warrant against contraband video tape dealers. The courts presume that the duplicate or copied tapes were necessarily produced from the tapes of the complainant of a search warrant (Century Fox Films vs. CA, 237 SCRA 367, 1994). In Columbia Pictures vs. CA the SC said the master tame is required only where there is a doubt as to the true never between the master tape and pirated copies. 16. A search warrant for things need not point to a specific offender. For warrant of arrest, it has to point a specific offender (Webb vs. De Leon, August 23, 1995).

17.For issuing a Probable cause.

warrant,

judge

determines

the

existence

of

18.For the filing of information, the prosecutor determines the existence of probable cause. 19.The police officer received a tip that the accused were repacking prohibited drugs in a certain house in Sta. Brigida St. Karuhutan, Valuenzuela, Metro Manila. They proceeded there with the informer and when they peeped on a window they saw accused repacking the marijuana, they arrested them. The SC said there was an illegal search. The state cannot in a cavalier fashion intrude into the persons of its citizens as well as into their houses, papers and effects (PP vs. Bolasa Dec. 22, 1999). 20.The commission of Immigration can only issue a warrant to carry out a final order of deportation. He is not a judge (Qua Chu Gan vs. BID, 33 SCRA 413). 21.Art. 34 of the Labor Code is unconstitutional, the Secretary of Labor cannot issue a search or arrest warrant, he is not a judge (Salazar vs. Achacoso, March 14, 1990). 22. Personal Examination in issuance of warrant of arrest. i. Exclusive and personal responsibility of the judge to satisfy himself of the existence of probable cause. ii. To satisfy himself does not require the judge to personally examine the complainant and his witnesses. iii. Judge may rely on the prosecutor’s finding (Soliven vs. Makasiar, November 14, 1998). 23.For purposes of issuance of search warrant, affidavit of the complainant and witnesses is not sufficient; there must be a searching inquiry. 24.The judge may require the prosecutor to submit additional evidence to determine probable cause. It is not a ministerial duty but a judicial function that he performs. 25.A judge cannot issue a warrant of arrest based on a prosecutor’s certification. The issuance must be supported by affidavits transcript if any and other supporting documents (PP vs. Inting, July 1990 and Lim vs. Felix, February 1991). 26. Particularity of description: i. When the description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow.

ii. When the description expresses conclusions of facts and not of law. iii. When the things described are limited to those which are directly related to the offense for which the warrant is issued. 27. The purpose of requiring particularity of description in to prevent abuse by the officer in enforcing the warrant by leaving him no description as to who or what to search or seize. 28.John doe warrant description personal of accused is valid. 29. A John doe warrant against 50 accused is in the nature of a general warrant that violates requirement of particularity (Pangandaman vs. Casar 159 SCRA 599, 1998). 30.The warrant is not valid if it authorizes the officer to pick up anything he pleases (Stonehill vs. Diokno, June 19, 1957) It states: Books of accounts, financial records, vouchers, journals, correspondence, receipts, ledgers, portfolios, credits journals, typewriters, and other documents and / or papers showing all business transactions including disbursement receipts, balance sheets and related project and loss statements. 31. What is material in determining the validity of a search is the place stated in the warrant itself, not what the applicants had in their mind or head represented in the proofs they submitted to the court that issued the warrant. The particularization of the description of the place to e search may properly be done only by the judge and only in the warrant itself, it cannot be left to the discretion of the police officers conducting the search ( PP vs. CA 291 SCRA 400). 32.If there is an obvious typographical error, the Search Warrant can be corrected, and it remains valid (Burgos vs. Chief of Staff 133 SCRA 800, 1984). 33.Exclusionary Rule (Sec. 3 [2], Art. 111), any evidence obtained without a warrant or by authorized of an invalid warrant is in-admissible in any proceedings. 34.Goods seized by the Bureau of Customs cannot be ordered returned by a judge because the Bureau have already acquired jurisdiction over it (Collector vs. Judge Villaluz, June 18, 1976. 35.Illegally seized firearms are inadmissible but they will remain in custody pending determination of their legality of possession (Alih vs. Castro 151 SCRA 279).

36.The motorcycle allegedly use as the get away vehicle in the shooting of congressman Moises Espinosa – illegally seized by the policemen two days after the shooting shall be returned even if it is needed for the prosecution of the accused (Bagalihoz vs. Fernandez, June 27, 1991). 37. Nolasco vs. Pano, 147 SCRA 509, 1987. -

Accused was arrested on board a jeepney.

-

Then his house was searched.

-

Search incident to a valid arrests is limited to the search on person of the arrested.

-

It may not be extended to a place other than that of the arrest.

-

The SC made permanent the injunction against the use of evidence seized in an illegal search.

38. The objection to an unlawful search or seizure and to evidence obtained thereby is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties (Stonehill vs. Diokno, June, 1967). 1. Warrantless searches incidental to a lawful arrest ( PP vs. Sucro, 195 SCRA 388 [ 1991] , PP vs. Malustedt 198 SCRA 401 [1991]). 2. Seizures of evidence in plain view. a. Prior valid intrusion based on warrantless arrest in which are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties. b. Evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be where they are. c. The evidence must be immediately apparent. d. Plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search. 3. Search of a moving vehicle ( Roldan vs. Arca, 65 SCRA 336). 4. Consented warrantless search. The waiver to be valid, it must be shown : a. The right to exist.

b. The person must have actual or constructive knowledge that such right exist. c. He has actual intention to relinquish that right. 5. Customs search or seizure of goods concealed to avoid duties. 6. Stop and frisk. 7. Exigent and emergency situation. 39.

Terry vs. Ohio (1968). (The stop and frisk rule) The facts are as follows: -

two men repeatedly walk past a store.

-

they returned to confer with a third man.

-

this aroused the suspicion of a police officer.

-

one of them was frisked and yielded a gun.

-

the other two were also frisked and they also have guns.

-

the search was held to be valid became policeman was trying to protect himself

the

39. Stop and frisk serves two fold interest. a. effective crime prevention and detection. b. the more pressing preservation.

interest

of

safety

and

40.A search incidental to a valid arrest must have been conducted at about the time and only at the place where the suspect was arrested or the premises or surrounding under his immediate control. 41.The essential requisites of probable cause must still be satisfied before a warrantless search and seizure can be conducted (PP vs. Aruta, 288 SCRA 626). It must be based on reasonable ground of suspicion or belief that a crime has been committed or is about to be committed.

42.Search on a fishing vessel used for illegal fishing is valid. a. because they are equipped with powerful motors to elude pursuit. b. the seizure is in incidental to a lawful arrest of the crew (Roldan vs. Arca 65 SCRA 336, July 25, 1975). 43. Extensive search without warrant could be resorted to: a. if there is reasonable or probable cause to believe that the motorist is a law of offender or there is an instrument or evidence pertaining to the commission of a crime on board. b. were smell of marijuana emanated from a plastic bag inside the vehicle. c. were the accused acted suspiciously and attempted to flee. 44. Espiritu said to his sympathizers “Bukas tuloy na ang welga natin hangang sa magkagulo na”, then in a later press conference he called for a nationwide strike. He was in the act of committing a crime when arrested. Therefore, his arrest was valid. 45.Where the officer learned two days before that Aminudin will arrive in Iloilo on board MV Wilcon, but they did not obtain a search warrant. The arrest of Aminudin was held to be illegal. The PC officers have all the time to secure search warrant against Aminudin for possession of prohibited drugs such as marijuana ( PP vs. Aminudin, 163 SCRA 402 ). 46.People vs. Malmsdedt ( 163 SCRA 402 ) i. Accused was arrested Camp Dangwa.

on

a

check

point

at

ii. There was a report that vehicles from Sagada were use to transport marijuana.

iii. There was also information that a Caucasian coming from Sagada was carrying a prohibited drug. iv. On inspection officers the waist of accused.

noticed

a

bulge

on

v. Accused refused to show his identification papers. vi. Hashhish were found in his waist bag. vii. He picked up two traveling contain prohibited drugs.

bags

which

The search was valid for being an accident to a valid arrest because it was made on probable cause that he was committing a crime. There was also a valid search of a moving vehicle. 47.People vs. Lo Ho Wing (January 21, 1991). i. a taxi with accused on board was stopped by PC soldiers based on a tip given by a DPA that accused was carrying shabu. ii. defendant contends that the PC knew two days before that he will arrived with uncertain quantity of shabu at the NAIA so they should have secured a warrant. The SC said there was a search of a moving vehicle; hence it was valid besides the accused waived by giving consent to the search. 48.A consent to a search on a hotel room allegedly given by a manicurist who was previously identified as the wife of the occupant is valid said the SC in Lopez vs. Comm. Of Customs (Dec.12, 1975). It served the parties well because they were saved from gossips and innuendos. 49.A permission to look for a rebel soldier inside a house is not a permission to conduct a room to room search for firearms (Sps. Veroy vs. Layague, June 18, 1972). 50.Upon surveillance accused were found to be acting with probable cause as pedophiles. They were arrested in the

company of naked boys. The SC said that the arrest was valid because there is already a probable cause. The order of arrest by the commissioner of the BID is not to determine probable cause (Harvey vs. Santiago, 162 SCRA 840) because probable cause was determined by surveillance. 51.The exception on warrantless arrest. a. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit an offence; b. When an offence has just been committed and he has probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it; and c. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or is temporarily confined while his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.