Doesn’t mean no discrimination if there is equality.

If EPC positive discrimination?

If a certain law applies only apply to a certain popn violates EPC? No, if the law applies to the particular
class that is based on substantial distinction.

SECTION 2

EQUSITES OF A VALID WARRANT:

1. Issued upon probable cause

2. Personally examined by the judge
3. Examined under oath and affirmation
4. Particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized (Sec. 2 Art. III, Uy v.
BIR) -doesn’t describe the person only the name (for search warrant- describe the face and things to be
seized)
5. Warrant must not be for more than one offense (Revised ROC)

SJS v DDB (MANDATORY DRUG TESTING, REQUIREMENT OF A VALID SEARCH)

SJS v. DDB (2008) – mandatory drug testing : The constitutionality as to political candidates, students, employees, and persons
charged with an offense were discussed as follows:

 Political candidates (unconstitutional) – the COMELEC Resolution passed unduly enlarges the qualification
requirements in Art. VI Sec. 3 of the Constitution. The same may not be expanded by law.
 Students (constitutional) – schools as loco parentis – the drug test prescribed under Sec. 36(c), (d), and (f) of RA 9165
for secondary and tertiary level students and public and private employees, while mandatory, is a random and
suspicionless arrangement. If private school- allowed but cant be used criminally against you, only administrative.
 Employees (constitutional) – the employees’ privacy interest in an office is to a large extent circumscribed by the
company’s work policies, the collective bargaining agreement, if any, entered into by management and the bargaining
unit, and the inherent right of the employer to maintain discipline and efficiency in the workplace. Thus, reduced.
(private and government)
 Persons charged with an offense (unconstitutional) – when persons suspected of committing a crime are charged, they
are singled out and are impleaded against their will. The persons thus charged, by the bare fact of being haled before
the prosecutor’s office and peaceably submitting themselves to drug testing, if that be the case, do not necessarily
consent to the procedure, let alone waive their right to privacy. It says if a complaint is filed not necessarily convicted
thus, peeps can just file bogus case to subject the person to drug testing.

Requisites of a Valid Warrant

People v. Veloso (1925) – John Doe warrant : It is the prevailing rule that a description of a place to be searched is sufficient if
the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended. A “John Doe warrant” is valid
so long as it states a particular description of the person to be arrested, that the officers may be able distinguish such person from
others.

If it is a “john doe seizure of a person” it is an arrest warrant. So you only specify description if
you are to seize it/the person. Place to be searched and the items to be seized are to be specified
if it is a search warrant.
Stonehill v. Diokno (1967) – no specific offense designated in warrant; only name of law violated; invalidity of general
warrant : It was impossible for the judges who issued the warrants to have found the existence of probable cause, for the same
presupposes the introduction of competent proof that the party against whom it is sought has performed particular acts, or
committed specific omissions, violating a given provision of our criminal laws.

Petitioners herein cannot invoke right to privacy because the papers belong to the corporation, and they cannot invoke the privacy
of the corporation as to the papers seized.

Particularity doesn’t need to be very particular. But particular enough to know it is related to the
offense.

Central Bank v. Morfe (1967) – no particular individuals were named in the application for a warrant organization : The
failure of the witness to mention particular individuals does not necessarily prove that he had no personal knowledge of specific
illegal transactions of the Organization, for the witness might be acquainted with specific transactions, even if the names of the
individuals concerned were unknown to him. The records suggest clearly that the transactions objected to by the Bank constitute
the general pattern of the business of the Organization.

Arrest warrant- GR: only happens when there is a case in court E: criminal proceeding… (not
our topic)

1. Complaint before prosecutor’s office who determines if there is probable cause

2. Prosecutor files information in the court. It is this time it becomes “People of PH v. X”
3. Judge determines whether to issue a warrant of arrest

*only a court can issue a warrant

Search warrant- first time judge encounters “case”; wala pang evidence law enforcers for a
probable crime; judge asks for “searching questions”

Warrant of arrest- there is already process with the prosecutor and he found probable cause to
file information; purpose is to bring them within the jurisdiction of the court, NOT to punish
them (soliven v makasiar?- judge based issuance on documents)

In case of lim- judge didn’t have the documents with him; only a letter telling him there’s a case
in Masbate

Bache v. Ruiz- judge didn’t personally determine probable cause- merely relied on transcript and merely
asked affiance if they wanted to change anything. Thus, search warrant invalid

Soliven v. Makasiar- judge personally determined PC by relying on records of preliminary investigation

conducted by fiscal is sufficient. Judge didn’t personally interview affiance. But, warrant is valid.

Lim v. Judge Felix - there was merely a certification that preliminary investigation was conducted.
Record was in still Masbate. And judge was in NCR. Therefore cant merely determine probable cause.
Invalid.
Search warrant- still no case; the reason for wanting a warrant is to gather evidence based on probable
cause to believe (by using personal knowledge (using your 5 senses))

There is nothing wrong with surveillance unless you are targeted.

5 pillars of criminal justice

1. Law enforcers
2. Preliminary Investigation
3. Judiciary
4. Correction-
a. jail- where you put person whose trial is ongoing; under DILG specifically BJMP (not
necessarily guilty yet)
b. prison
5. Community

Search of moving vehicle- there must be an element of probable cause (e.g. intelligence report)

Malmstedt case
“Inflagrante delicto”- exception to valid warrant
- You have to know which came first- search or arrest
o If search came first- what is the basis for the lawful search; if there’s none- unlawful
search thus, arrest is also unlawful
o If arrest came first- you can do a search incidental to the arrest

Posadas
Stop and Search – there should be justification for the search

People v. Aruta
Invalid search because no probable cause. And Aling Rosa was merely carrying her bags and the
suspicion was only because someone pointed at her. Mere pointing is not enough. Even mere being in
the bus by Malmstedt is not enough. He had to exhibit certain actions to warrant the suspicion.

Asuncion v. CA
There was an informant describing the vehicle. Moreover, Vic Vargas was already encountered by the
police before but evaded them. So they now had reason to believe he was committing a crime that’s why
SC allowed exception that it is a moving vehicle.

People v. Canton
Not a warrantless arrest incidental to arrest because searched first then arrested. However, law provides
officers may search passengers in terminal, seaports, airport.

Material Distributor v. Natividad

For civil cases, subpoena or discovery proceedings is used to get evidence from other party.

Plain view doctrine- officer had the right to be in the area (ex. Bldg. official checking for cracks in bldg. but
saw weed in your room- valid search because he was allowed inside. If not allowed, not valid)
Manalili
Based on probable cause to believe that he was under the influence of illegal drugs. So it was valid to go
beyond stop and frisk.

3 type of probable cause

1. Defined under rules of court- preliminary investigation- prosecutor has reasonable basis to
believe crime has been committed and respondent is probably guilty thereof
2. Defined by rules of court- similar to sec 2 art 3- person might flee
3. Probable cause determined by law enforcer

GR: if you have time to get a warrant regardless of necessity of time, you should get one.
An informant pointing is not yet sufficient. Better way is get a warrant if you have informant.

GR: 10 days to execute. After, you need to report to the court that you didn’t issue a warrant. Court will
issue another called “alias warrant”
Anyag
Checkpoint- police officers can’t open truck.

Incidental to lawful arrest- only check the immediate vicinity. (plain view- you have to have the right to be
in the place)

Valid warrantless arrest (also basis for citizen’s arrest- I can arrest anyone under these circumstances)
1. Infragrante delicto- caught in the act
2. Personal knowledge (can be based from observation) that a crime was just committed and
person arrested is probably guilty thereof
3. Already in jail/prison and you escaped

People v. Aruta

Exceptions (should not become unbridled licenses for law enforcement officers to trample upon the
constitutionally guaranteed right of persons against unreasonable searches and seizures):

1. Warrantless search incidental to a lawful arrest;

2. Seizure of evidence in plain view, the elements of which are:
1. a prior valid intrusion based on the valid warrantless arrest in which the police
are legally present in the pursuit of their official duties;
2. the evidence was inadvertently discovered by the police who had the right to be
where they are;
3. the evidence must be immediately apparent, and
4. plain view justified mere seizure of evidence without further search;
3. Search of a moving vehicle;
4. Consented warrantless search;
5. Customs search;
6. Stop and Frisk; and
7. Exigent and Emergency Circumstances.
8. Hot pursuit
9. Airport, terminal, seaport search
Section 12

Situation 1

 Binky accomplished admission in writing only in front of private person who caught her while
waiting for grabshare going to police station- admissible evidence
 Binky accomplished admission in front of police officers in police station- inadmissible evidence

Custodial investigation- it’s the person that determines if in custodial investigation already; this is to
prevent coercion by police officers; does not apply to private individuals

Voluntary admission even when in custody- not custodial investigation but when police starts asking
question becomes custodial

Requisites for confession to be admissible:

1. Voluntary;
2. Assistance of competent and independent counsel;
3. Expressed;
4. In writing; and
5. Signed or thumb-marked.

Right to counsel – must be accepted by accused

Miranda vs. Arizona

Miranda- no violation of Miranda rights if person didn’t ask for a lawyer

But PH constitution- lawyer is mandated by law

Competency of lawyer- depends on whether you can properly represent the client

Independent counsel- no conflict of interest

Who are not independent counsel (People v. Sunga)

1. Special counsel, public or private prosecutor, counsel of the police, or a municipal attorney whose
interest is adverse to that of the accused;
2. Mayor;
3. Barangay captain; or
4. Any other whose interest may be adverse to that of the accused.

Right to Bail

Arrest needed to bring person under court’s jurisdiction. Once he posts right to bail he recognizes
jurisdiction of court over him. Arrest is necessary

Right is discretionary when the ff. concur:

 1. Charge punishable with reclusion perpetua
2. Evidence of guilt is strong.

Amount of bail does not take into account income of accused.

Convicted by RTC but appeals- bail is still discretionary in certain cases because no finality yet

Section 15

Habeas Corpus-

Public safety- similar to meaning in police power; anything that would benefit the public

Suspension of habeas corpus- only emergency powers of the President