Bill of Rights II

1,652 views
1,502 views

Published on

(c) Ge

1 Comment
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Thanks sir for this simple but concise presentation of the Bill of Rights particularly Art. III, Section II. It help our students to have a better understanding of their fundamental rights.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,652
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
7
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
91
Comments
1
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Bill of Rights II

  1. 1. Bill of Rights(1987 Philippine Constitution)
  2. 2. Article-III, Section-II“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizuresof whatever nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable andno search warrant or warrant of arrest shall issue except uponprobable cause to be determined personally by the judge afterexamination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and thewitnesses he may produce, particularly describing the place tobe searched and the persons or things to be seized.”
  3. 3. Article-III, Section-II• The purpose of Section-II is to protect the privacy and the sanctity of the person and of his house and other possessions (papers, documents, effects, etc.) found therein against arbitrary intrusions by agents of the state.
  4. 4. Article-III, Section-II• Search Warrant – is an order in writing, issued in the name of the people of the Republic of the Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for a certain personal property and bring it before the court.
  5. 5. Article-III, Section-II A Valid Search Warrant and warrant of Arrest must have Probable Cause. Probable Cause – means there are facts and circumstances attending the issuance of warrant sufficient to induce a prudent and cautious judge to rely on them. The Probable Cause must be determined personally by the judge. The Warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched, or the person or things to be seized.
  6. 6. Article-III, Section-II Search and Seizures can be made without Warrant in the following instances: – When there is consent or waiver – that is if a Peace Officer has been granted consent to enter the premise of another for the purpose of search and seizure; – Where search is an incident to a lawful arrest – say, a pickpocket caught in flagrante delicto, can be searched for his loot; – When an officer making the search has reasonable cause to conduct it in a vehicle believed to be containing contraband or forfeited goods – because the vehicle can get away before a warrant is secured. – When the possession of articles prohibited by law is disclosed to plain view (plain view rule)
  7. 7. Article-III, Section-II Note: Inspection conducted by Health and Sanitary inspectors in restaurants in the exercise of “state police power” in view of enforcing laws on public health or by labor inspectors of companies acting on a complaints of its workers for possible violation of labor laws and the Bureau of Internal Revenue examiner of financial records of companies, need not have warrant. The same is true of routinary searches made at the border or ports of entry in the interest of national secuirty
  8. 8. Article-III, Section-II A private individual can arrest a criminaleven without a warrant, this is called“CITIZEN ARREST”.
  9. 9. Warrantless ArrestWarrantless Arrest is allowed under the following circumstances:1. Flagrante Delicto (Caught in the Act);2. Hot Pursuit Operation;3. Arrest of Fugitive.
  10. 10. Warrantless Arrest1. Flagrante Delicto (Caught in the Act)  Person to be arrested has committed, is actually committing, is attempting to commit an offense;  Such commission is in the presence of the arresting individual;  Arresting individual has personal knowledge of such commission.
  11. 11. Warrantless ArrestNote : (Commission of a Crime)  One person can arrest a person, who has stabbed and killed another in his presence since the person to be arrested “has committed” the crime of homicide.  One can arrest a person, who with intent to kill, is stabbing another in his presence since the person to be arrested “is actually committing” the crime of homicide.  One can arrest a person, who with intent to kill is about to stab another in his presence since the person to be arrested is “attempting to commit” the crime of homicide.
  12. 12. Warrantless Arrest• Hot Pursuit – Hot Pursuit Arrest takes effect when a crime has just in fact been committed and the arresting officer or private individual has probable cause to believe based on personal facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed it. Elements of Hot Pursuit Arrest: • Time Element – that an offense has just been committed, which connotes an immediacy in point of time. • Personal Knowledge – that the arresting officer or individual must have probable cause based on personal knowledge of fact or circumstances that the person to be arrested has committed the crime.
  13. 13. Warrantless ArrestNote : (Continuing Crime Doctrine)  Rebellion is a continuing crime. If one has been a rebel since 1988, he is continuously committing the crime of rebellion from 1988 up to the present. Thus, police officers or military men who have probable cause to believe that the person to be arrested is a rebel, can make a warrantless arrest even if the rebel is not doing an act in furtherance of rebellion. Even if the rebel is just sleeping, watching tv or taking a bath at the time of the arrest, the warrantless arrest is lawful since the suspect is deemed caught in the act of committing the crime of rebellion.
  14. 14. Warrantless Arrest• Arrest of Fugitive – When a person to be arrested is a prisoner who escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case is pending or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to another.
  15. 15.  Note :  Evidences obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable search are not admissible in evidence for being a “fruit of a poisonous tree”.  The "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine is an offspring of the Exclusionary Rule. The exclusionary rule mandates that evidence obtained from an illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive interrogation must be excluded from trial. Under the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine, evidence is also excluded from trial if it was gained through evidence uncovered in an illegal arrest, unreasonable search, or coercive interrogation.
  16. 16.  Note :  The name fruit of the poisonous tree is thus a metaphor: the poisonous tree is evidence seized in an illegal arrest, search, or interrogation by law enforcement. The fruit of this poisonous tree is evidence later discovered because of knowledge gained from the first illegal search, arrest, or interrogation. The poisonous tree and the fruit are both excluded from a criminal trial.  Fruit of the Poisonous Tree doctrine can only be invoked by individuals against an officer nor agent of the state.
  17. 17. Purpose of the Fruit of the Poisonous Tree Doctrine: To deter law enforcement from violating peoples’ rights against unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by government officers nor agents of the state.
  18. 18. Other Related Legal Terms: • Admissible Evidence - Evidence permitted to be introduced at trial. Only relevant evidence is admissible, which means the evidence must tend to make more or less probable the existence of some fact material to the case, or some fact otherwise of consequence to making a determination in the case. Evidence which tends to establish facts from which one could then infer that some material fact is more or less probable is also admissible as relevant evidence. • Excluded Evidence - Evidence which may be otherwise relevant and admissible but which is not admitted and may not be considered in the decision-making process for some reason other than irrelevance. • Good Faith - A reasonable, honest belief lacking malice or ill- intent and without intention to defraud. The concept of good faith appears in many areas of law, although it is intangible and determined based on the totality of the circumstances rather than some hard and fast rule. 

×