crimpro cases 2

8/10/2019 Crimpro Cases 2

1/94

G.R. No. L-19550 June 19, 1967

HARRY S. STONEHILL, ROBERT P. BROOKS, JOHN J. BROOKS an KARL

BE!K,petitioners,vs.HON. JOSE ". #IOKNO, $n %$& 'a(a'$)* a& SE!RETARY O+ JSTI!E JOSE LKBAN, $n

%$& 'a(a'$)* a& A')$n #$/e')o/, Na)$ona Bu/eau o In2e&)$a)$on SPE!IAL

PROSE!TORS PE#RO #. !EN3ON, E+REN I. PLANA an 4ANEL ILLAREAL, JR. an

ASST. +IS!AL 4ANASES G. REYES J#GE A4A#O ROAN, 4un$'$(a !ou/) o 4an$a

J#GE RO4AN !ANSINO, 4un$'$(a !ou/) o 4an$a J#GE HER4OGENES !ALAG,

!ou/) o +$/&) In&)an'e o R$a-ueon !$)* B/an'%, an J#GE #A4IAN JI4ENE3,

4un$'$(a !ou/) o ueon !$)*,respondents.

Paredes, Poblador, Cruz and Nazareno and Meer, Meer and Meer and Juan T. David for

petitioners.

Office of the Solicitor General rturo . lafriz, ssistant Solicitor General Pacifico P. de Castro,

ssistant Solicitor General !rine C. "aballero, Solicitor Ca#ilo D. $uiason and Solicitor C.

Padua for respondents.

!ON!EP!ION, C.J.:

Upon application of the officers of the government named on the margin1 hereinafter referred

to as Respondents-Prosecutors several judges2

hereinafter referred to as Respondents-Judges issued, on different dates,3a total of 2 search !arrants against petitionershereinand"or the corporations of !hich the# !ere officers,$directed to the an# peace officer, tosearch the persons a%ove-named and"or the premises of their offices, !arehouses and"orresidences, and to sei&e and ta'e possession of the follo!ing personal propert# to !it(

)oo's of accounts, financial records, vouchers, correspondence, receipts, ledgers,journals, portfolios, credit journals, t#pe!riters, and other documents and"or paperssho!ing all %usiness transactions including dis%ursements receipts, %alance sheetsand profit and loss statements and )o%%ins *cigarette !rappers+.

as the su%ject of the offense stolen or em%e&&led and proceeds or fruits of the offense, orused or intended to %e used as the means of committing the offense, !hich is descri%ed in theapplications adverted to a%ove as violation of entral )an' /a!s, 0ariff and ustoms /a!s,nternal Revenue *ode+ and the Revised Penal ode.

lleging that the aforementioned search !arrants are null and void, as contravening theonstitution and the Rules of ourt %ecause, inter alia( *1+ the# do not descri%e !ithparticularit# the documents, %oo's and things to %e sei&ed *2+ cash mone#, not mentioned in the!arrants, !ere actuall# sei&ed *3+ the !arrants !ere issued to fish evidence against theaforementioned petitioners in deportation cases filed against them *+ the searches andsei&ures !ere made in an illegal manner and *$+ the documents, papers and cash mone#sei&ed !ere not delivered to the courts that issued the !arrants, to %e disposed of in accordance!ith la! on arch 24, 1562, said petitioners filed !ith the 7upreme ourt this original actionfor certiorari, prohi%ition, #anda#us and injunction, and pra#ed that, pending final disposition ofthe present case, a !rit of preliminar# injunction %e issued restraining Respondents-Prosecutors, their agents and "or representatives from using the effects sei&ed as

aforementioned or an# copies thereof, in the deportation cases alread# adverted to, and that, indue course, thereafter, decision %e rendered 8uashing the contested search !arrants and

declaring the same null and void, and commanding the respondents, their agents orrepresentatives to return to petitioners herein, in accordance !ith 7ection 3, Rule 69, of theRules of ourt, the documents, papers, things and cash mone#s sei&ed or confiscated under thesearch !arrants in 8uestion.

n their ans!er, respondents-prosecutors alleged, 6*1+ that the contested search !arrants arevalid and have %een issued in accordance !ith la! *2+ that the defects of said !arrants, if an#,!ere cured %# petitioners: consent and *3+ that, in an# event, the effects sei&ed are admissi%lein evidence against herein petitioners, regardless of the alleged illegalit# of the aforementionedsearches and sei&ures.

;n arch 22, 1562, this ourt issued the !rit of preliminar# injunction pra#ed for in the petition.overnment:s action in gaining possession of papers %elonging tothe corporation did not relate to nor did it affect thepersonal defendants. f thesepapers !ere unla!full# sei&ed and there%# the constitutional rights of or an# one !ereinvaded, the# !ere the rights of the corporation and not the rights of the otherdefendants. ?e@t, it is clear that a 8uestion of the la!fulness of a sei&ure can %eraised onl% %# one 'hose ri(hts have been invaded. ertainl#, such a sei&ure, ifunla!ful, could not affect the constitutional rights of defendants 'hose propert% hadnot been seized or the privac% of 'hose ho#es had not been disturbed nor couldthe# claim for themselves the %enefits of the Aourth mendment, !hen its violation, ifan#, !as !ith reference to the rights of another. )e#us vs. *nited States *...+251A. $41, $11. t follo!s, therefore, that the 8uestion of the admissi%ilit# of the evidence%ased on an alleged unla!ful search and sei&ure does not e@tend to the personaldefendants %ut em%races onl%the corporation !hose propert# !as ta'en. . . . *>uc'enheimer B )ros. o. vs. United 7tates, C152$D 3 A. 2d. 9=6, 9=5, Emphasis

supplied.+


2/94

Fith respect to the documents, papers and things sei&ed in the residences of petitioners herein,the aforementioned resolution of June 25, 1562, lifted the !rit of preliminar# injunction previousl#issued %# this ourt,12there%#, in effect, restraining herein Respondents-Prosecutors from usingthem in evidence against petitioners herein.

n connection !ith said documents, papers and things, t!o *2+ important 8uestions need %esettled, namel#( *1+ !hether the search !arrants in 8uestion, and the searches and sei&uresmade under the authorit# thereof, are valid or not, and *2+ if the ans!er to the preceding8uestion is in the negative, !hether said documents, papers and things ma# %e used inevidence against petitioners herein.+'ph-+./t

Petitioners maintain that the aforementioned search !arrants are in the nature of general!arrants and that accordingl#, the sei&ures effected upon the authorit# there of are null and void.n this connection, the onstitution13provides(

0he right of the people to %e secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effectsagainst unreasona%le searches and sei&ures shall not %e violated, and no !arrantsshall issue %ut upon pro%a%le cause, to %e determined %# the judge after e@aminationunder oath or affirmation of the complainant and the !itnesses he ma# produce, andparticularl# descri%ing the place to %e searched, and the persons or things to %esei&ed.

0!o points must %e stressed in connection !ith this constitutional mandate, namel#( *1+ that no!arrant shall issue %ut upon probable cause, to %e determined %# the judge in the manner setforth in said provision and *2+ that the !arrant shallparticularl% descri%e the things to %e sei&ed.

?one of these re8uirements has %een complied !ith in the contested !arrants. ndeed, thesame !ere issued upon applications stating that the natural and juridical person therein namedhad committed a violation of entral )an /a!s, 0ariff and ustoms /a!s, nternal Revenue*ode+ and Revised Penal ode. n other !ords, nospecific offense had %een alleged in saidapplications. 0he averments thereof !ith respect to the offense committed !ere abstract. s aconse8uence, it !as i#possible for the judges !ho issued the !arrants to have found thee@istence of pro%a%le cause, for the same presupposes the introduction of competent proof thatthe part# against !hom it is sought has performedparticular acts, orcommitted specific omissions, violating a given provision of our criminal la!s. s a matter of fact,the applications involved in this case do not allege an# specific acts performed %# herein

petitioners. t !ould %e the legal heres#, of the highest order, to convict an#%od# of a violation ofentral )an' /a!s, 0ariff and ustoms /a!s, nternal Revenue *ode+ and Revised Penalode, as alleged in the aforementioned applications !ithout reference to an# determinateprovision of said la!s or

0o uphold the validit# of the !arrants in 8uestion !ould %e to !ipe out completel# one of themost fundamental rights guaranteed in our onstitution, for it !ould place the sanctit# of thedomicile and the privac# of communication and correspondence at the merc# of the !himscaprice or passion of peace officers. 0his is precisel# the evil sought to %e remedied %# theconstitutional provision a%ove 8uoted to outla! the so-called general !arrants. t is notdifficult to imagine !hat !ould happen, in times of 'een political strife, !hen the part# in po!erfeels that the minorit# is li 'el# to !rest it, even though %# legal means.

7uch is the seriousness of the i rregularities committed in connection !ith the disputed search!arrants, that this ourt deemed it fit to amend 7ection 3 of Rule 122 of the former Rules of

ourt 1%# providing in its counterpart, under the Revised Rules of ourt 1$that a search!arrant shall not issue %ut upon pro%a%le cause in connection 'ith one specific offense. ?otsatisfied !ith this 8ualification, the ourt added thereto a paragraph, directing that no search!arrant shall issue for more than one specific offense.

0he grave violation of the onstitution made in the application for the contested search !arrants!as compounded %# the description therein made of the effects to %e searched for and sei&ed,to !it(

)oo's of accounts, financial records, vouchers, journals, correspondence, receipts,ledgers, portfolios, credit journals, t#pe!riters, and other documents and"or paperssho!ing all %usiness transactions including dis%ursement receipts, %alance sheetsand related profit and loss statements.

0hus, the !arrants authori&ed the search for and sei&ure of records pertaining to all businesstransactions of petitioners herein, regardless of !hether the transactions !ere le(al or ille(al.0he !arrants sanctioned the sei&ure of all records of the petitioners and the aforementionedcorporations, !hatever their nature, thus openl# contravening the e@plicit command of our )ill ofRights that the things to %e sei&ed %eparticularl% descri%ed as !ell as tending to defeat itsmajor o%jective( the elimination of (eneral !arrants.

Rel#ing upon Moncado vs. People0s Court *=4 Phil. 1+, Respondents-Prosecutors maintain that,

even if the searches and sei&ures under consideration !ere unconstitutional, the documents,papers and things thus sei&ed are admissi%le in evidence against petitioners herein. Uponmature deli%eration, ho!ever, !e are unanimousl# of the opinion that the position ta'en in theoncado case must %e a%andoned. 7aid position !as in line !ith the merican common la!rule, that the criminal should not %e allo!ed to go free merel# %ecause the consta%le has%lundered, 16upon the theor# that the constitutional prohi%ition against unreasona%le searchesand sei&ures is protected %# means other than the e@clusion of evidence unla!full#o%tained, 19such as the common-la! action for damages against the searching officer, againstthe part# !ho procured the issuance of the search !arrant and against those assisting in thee@ecution of an illegal search, their criminal punishment, resistance, !ithout lia%ilit# to anunla!ful sei&ure, and such other legal remedies as ma# %e provided %# other la!s.


3/94

and, so far as those thus placed are concerned, might as !ell %e stric'en from theonstitution. The efforts of the courts and their officials to brin( the (uilt% to

punish#ent, praise'orth% as the% are, are not to be aided b% the sacrifice of those

(reat principles established b% %ears of endeavor and sufferin( 'hich have resulted in

their e#bodi#ent in the funda#ental la' of the land.15

0his vie! !as, not onl# reiterated, %ut, also, %roadened in su%se8uent decisions on the sameAederal ourt. 24fter revie!ing previous decisions thereon, said ourt held, in Mapp vs.Ohio *supra.+(

. . . 0oda# !e once again e@amine the Folf:s constitutional documentation of the rightof privac# free from unreasona%le state intrusion, and after its do&en #ears on our%oo's, are led %# it to close the onl# courtroom door remaining open to evidencesecured %# official la!lessness in flagrant a%use of that %asic right, reserved to allpersons as a specific guarantee against that ver# same unla!ful conduct. Fe holdthat all evidence o%tained %# searches and sei&ures in violation of the onstitution is,%# that same authorit#, inadmissi%le in a 7tate.

7ince the Aourth mendment:s right of privac# has %een declared enforcea%le againstthe 7tates through the Gue Process lause of the Aourteenth, it i s enforcea%le againstthem %# the same sanction of e@clusion as it used against the Aederal >overnment.Fere it other!ise, then just as !ithout the Fee's rule the assurance againstunreasona%le federal searches and sei&ures !ould %e a form of !ords, valueless

and underserving of mention in a perpetual charter of inestima%le human li%erties, sotoo, 'ithout that rule the freedo# fro# state invasions of privac% 'ould be soephe#eral and so neatl% severed fro# its conceptual ne&us 'ith the freedo# fro# all

brutish #eans of coercin( evidence as not to per#it this Court0s hi(h re(ard as a

freedo# i#plicit in the concept of ordered libert%. t the time that the ourt held inFolf that the amendment !as applica%le to the 7tates through the Gue Processlause, the cases of this ourt as !e have seen, had steadfastl# held that as tofederal officers the Aourth mendment included the e@clusion of the evidence sei&edin violation of its provisions. Even Folf stoutl# adhered to that proposition. 0he rightto !hen conceded operativel# enforcea%le against the 7tates, !as not suscepti%le ofdestruction %# avulsion of the sanction upon !hich its protection and enjo#ment hadal!a#s %een deemed dependent under the )o#d, Fee's and 7ilverthorne ases.0herefore, in e@tending the su%stantive protections of due process to allconstitutionall# unreasona%le searches state or federal it !as logicall# and

constitutionall# necessaril# that the e@clusion doctrine an essential part of the rightto privac# %e also insisted upon as an essential ingredient of the right ne!l#recogni&ed %# the Folf ase. n short, the ad#ission of the ne' constitutional )i(htb% 2olf could not tolerate denial of its #ost i#portant constitutional privile(e, na#el%,

the e&clusion of the evidence 'hich an accused had been forced to (ive b% reason of

the unla'ful seizure. To hold other'ise is to (rant the ri(ht but in realit% to 'ithhold its

privile(e and en1o%#ent. ;nl# last #ear the ourt itself recogni&ed that the purpose ofthe e&clusionar% rule to is to deter 3to co#pel respect for the constitutional(uarant% in the onl% effectivel% available 'a% 3b% re#ovin( the incentive todisre(ard it . . . .

0he igno%le shortcut to conviction left open to the 7tate tends to destro# the entires#stem of constitutional restraints on !hich the li%erties of the people rest.


4/94

Upon the other hand, !e are not satisfied that the allegations of said petitions said motion forreconsideration, and the contents of the aforementioned affidavits and other papers su%mitted insupport of said motion, have sufficientl# esta%lished the facts or conditions contemplated in thecases relied upon %# the petitioners to !arrant application of the vie!s therein e@pressed,should !e agree thereto. t an# rate, !e do not deem it necessar# to e@press our opinionthereon, it %eing %est to leave the matter open for determination in appropriate cases in thefuture.

Fe hold, therefore, that the doctrine adopted in the oncado case must %e, as it is here%#,a%andoned that the !arrants for the search of three *3+ residences of herein petitioners, asspecified in the Resolution of June 25, 1562, are null and void that the searches and sei&urestherein made are illegal that the !rit of preliminar# injunction heretofore issued, in connection!ith the documents, papers and other effects thus sei&ed in said residences of herein petitionersis here%# made permanent that the !rits pra#ed for are granted, insofar as the documents,papers and other effects so sei&ed in the aforementioned residences are concerned that theaforementioned motion for Reconsideration and mendment should %e, as it is here%#, deniedand that the petition herein is dismissed and the !rits pra#ed for denied, as regards thedocuments, papers and other effects sei&ed in the t!ent#-nine *25+ places, offices and otherpremises enumerated in the same Resolution, !ithout special pronouncement as to costs.

t is so ordered.

)e%es, J.4.5., Dizon, Ma6alintal, 4en(zon, J.P., "aldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.

!ASTRO, J.,concurring and dissenting(

Arom m# anal#sis of the opinion !ritten %# hief Justice Ro%erto oncepcion and from theimport of the deli%erations of the ourt on this case, gather the follo!ing distinct conclusions(

1.ll the search !arrants served %# the ?ational )ureau of nvestigation in this caseare general !arrants and are therefore proscri%ed %#, and in violation of, paragraph 3of section 1 of rticle *)ill of Rights+ of the onstitution

2. ll the searches and sei&ures conducted under the authorit# of the said search!arrants !ere conse8uentl# illegal

3. 0he non-e@clusionar# rule enunciated in Moncado vs. People, =4 Phil. 1, should %e,and is declared, a%andoned

. 0he search !arrants served at the three residences of the petitionersare e&pressl% declared null and void the searches and sei&ures therein madeare e&pressl% declared illegal and the !rit of preliminar# injunction heretofore issuedagainst the use of the documents, papers and effect sei&ed in the said residences ismade permanent and

$. Reasoning that the petitioners have not in their pleadings satisfactoril#demonstrated that the# have legal standing to move for the suppression of thedocuments, papers and effects sei&ed in the places other than the three residences

adverted to a%ove, the opinion !ritten %# the hiefJustice refrains from e&pressl%declaring as null and void the such !arrants served at

such other places and as illegal the searches and sei&ures made therein, and leavesthe matter open for determination in appropriate cases in the future.

t is precisel# the position ta'en %# the hief Justice summari&ed in the immediatel# precedingparagraph *num%ered $+ !ith !hich am not in accord.

do not share his reluctance or un!illingness to e@pressl# declare, at this time, the nullit# of thesearch !arrants served at places other than the three residences, and the illegi%ilit# of thesearches and sei&ures conducted under the authorit# thereof. n m# vie! even the e@acer%ating

passions and prejudices inordinatel# generated %# the environmental political and moraldevelopments of this case should not deter this ourt from forthrightl# la#ing do!n the la! notonl# for this case %ut as !ell for future cases and future generations.ll the search !arrants,!ithout e@ception, in this case are admittedl# general, %lan'et and roving !arrants and aretherefore admittedl# and indisputa%l# outla!ed %# the onstitution and the searches andsei&ures made !ere therefore unla!ful. 0hat the petitioners, let us assume in (ratia ar(u#ente,have no legal standing to as' for the suppression of the papers, things and effects sei&ed fromplaces other than their residences, to m# mind, cannot in an# manner affect, alter or other!isemodif# the intrinsic nullit# of the search !arrants and the intrinsic illegalit# of the searches andsei&ures made thereunder. Fhether or not the petitioners possess legal standing the said!arrants are void and remain void, and the searches and sei&ures !ere illegal and remainillegal. ?o inference can %e dra!n from the !ords of the onstitution that legal standing or thelac' of it is a determinant of the nullit# or validit# of a search !arrant or of the la!fulness orillegalit# of a search or sei&ure.

;n the 8uestion of legal standing, am of the conviction that, upon the pleadings su%mitted tothis ourt the petitioners have the re8uisite legal standing to move for the suppression andreturn of the documents, papers and effects that !ere sei&ed from places other than their famil#residences.

;ur constitutional provision on searches and sei&ures !as derived almost verbati# from theAourth mendment to the United 7tates onstitution. n the man# #ears of judicial constructionand interpretation of the said constitutional provision, our courts have invaria%l# regarded asdoctrinal the pronouncement made on the Aourth mendment %# federal courts, especiall# theAederal 7upreme ourt and the Aederal ircuit ourts of ppeals.

0he U.7. doctrines and pertinent cases on standing to move for the suppression or return of

documents, papers and effects !hich are the fruits of an unla!ful search and sei&ure, ma# %esummari&ed as follo!s *a+ o!nership of documents, papers and effects gives standing *%+o!nership and"or control or possession actual or constructive of premises searched givesstanding and *c+ the aggrieved person doctrine !here the search !arrant and the s!ornapplication for search !arrant are primaril# directed solel# and e@clusivel# against theaggrieved person, gives standing.

n e@amination of the search !arrants in this case !ill readil# sho! that, e@cepting three, all!ere directed against the petitioners personall#. n some of them, the petitioners !ere namedpersonall#, follo!ed %# the designation, the President and"or >eneral anager of the particularcorporation. 0he three !arrants e@cepted named three corporate defendants. )ut theoffice"house"!arehouse"premises mentioned in the said three !arrants !ere also the sameoffice"house"!arehouse"premises declared to %e o!ned %# or under the control of thepetitioners in all the other search !arrants directed against the petitioners and"or the Presidentand"or >eneral anager of the particular corporation. *see pages $-2 of Petitioners: Repl# of


5/94

pril 2, 1562+. 0he searches and sei&ures !ere to %e made, and !ere actuall# made, in theoffice"house"!arehouse"premises o!ned %# or under the control of the petitioners.

O'nership of #atters seized (ives standin(.

;!nership of the properties sei&ed alone entitles the petitioners to %ring a motion to return andsuppress, and gives them standing as persons aggrieved %# an unla!ful search and sei&ureregardless of their location at the time of sei&ure. Jones vs. *nited States, 362 U.7. 2$9, 261*1564+ *narcotics stored in the apartment of a friend of the defendant+ 7enzel vs. *nited States,

256 A. 2d. 6$4, 6$2-$3 *$th ir. 1561+, *personal and corporate papers of corporation of !hichthe defendant !as president+, *nited States vs. Jeffers, 32 U.7. = *15$1+ *narcotics sei&ed inan apartment not %elonging to the defendant+ Pielo' vs. *nited States, = A. 2d 52, 53 *5thir. 152$+ *%oo's sei&ed from the defendant:s sister %ut %elonging to the defendant+ f. 8illanovs. *nited States, 314 A. 2d 6=4, 6=3 *14th ir. 1562+ *papers sei&ed in des' neither o!ned %#nor in e@clusive possession of the defendant+.

n a ver# recent case *decided %# the U.7. 7upreme ourt on Gecem%er 12, 1566+, it !as heldthat under the constitutional provision against unla!ful searches and sei&ures, a person placeshimself or his propert# !ithin a constitutionall# protected area, %e it his home or his office, hishotel room or his automo%ile(

Fhere the argument falls is in its misapprehension of the fundamental nature and

scope of Aourth mendment protection. Fhat the Aourth mendment protects is thesecurit# a man relies upon !hen heplaces hi#self or his propert% 'ithin aconstitutionall% protected area, be it his ho#e or his office, his hotel roo# or his

auto#obile. 0here he is protected from un!arranted governmental intrusion. nd!hen he puts some thing in his filing ca%inet, in his des' dra!er, or in his poc'et, hehas the right to 'no! it !ill %e secure from an unreasona%le search or anunreasona%le sei&ure. 7o it !as that the Aourth mendment could not tolerate the!arrantless search of the hotel room in Jeffers, the purloining of the petitioner:s privatepapers in Gouled, or the surreptitious electronic surveilance in Silver#an. ountlessother cases !hich have come to this ourt over the #ears have involved a m#riad ofdiffering factual conte@ts in !hich the protections of the Aourth mendment have %eenappropriatel# invo'ed. ?o dou%t, the future !ill %ring countless others. )# nothing !esa# here do !e either foresee or foreclose factual situations to !hich the Aourth

mendment ma# %e applica%le. *7offa vs. *.S., =9 7. t. 4= *Gecem%er 12, 1566+.

7ee also *.S. vs. Jeffers, 32 U.7. =, 92 7. t. 53 *?ovem%er 13, 15$1+. *Emphasissupplied+.

Control of pre#ises searched (ives 9standin(.9

ndependent of o!nership or other personal interest in the records and documents sei&ed, thepetitioners have standing to move for return and suppression %# virtue of their proprietar# orleasehold interest in man# of the premises searched. 0hese proprietar# and leasehold interestshave %een sufficientl# set forth in their motion for reconsideration and need not %e recountedhere, e@cept to emphasi&e that the petitioners paid rent, directl# or indirectl#, for practicall# allthe premises searched *Room 51, = armen pts Room 34, rm# B ?av# lu% Premises244=, Ge!e# )oulevard 136 olorado 7treet+ maintained personal offices !ithin the corporateoffices *), U70+ had made improvements or furnished such offices or had paid for thefiling ca%inets in !hich the papers !ere stored *Room 24, rm# B ?av# lu%+ and individuall#,or through their respective spouses, o!ned the controlling stoc' of the corporations involved.0he petitioners: proprietar# interest in most, if not all, of the premises searched therefore

independentl# gives them standing to move for the return and suppression of the %oo's, papersand affects sei&ed therefrom.

n Jones vs. *nited States, supra, the U.7. 7upreme ourt delineated the nature and e@tent ofthe interest in the searched premises necessar# to maintain a motion to suppress. fterrevie!ing !hat it considered to %e the undul# technical standard of the then prevailing circuitcourt decisions, the 7upreme ourt said *362 U.7. 266+(

Fe do not lightl# depart from this course of decisions %# the lo!er courts. Fe are

persuaded, ho!ever, that it is unnecessaril# and ill-advised to import into the la!surrounding the constitutional right to %e free from unreasona%le searches andsei&ures su%tle distinctions, developed and refined %# the common la! in evolving the%od# of private propert# la! !hich, more than almost an# other %ranch of la!, has%een shaped %# distinctions !hose validit# is largel# historical. Even in the area from!hich the# derive, due consideration has led to the discarding of those distinctions inthe homeland of the common la!. 7ee ;ccupiers: /ia%ilit# ct, 15$9, $ and 6 Eli&. 2,c. 31, carr#ing out /a! Reform ommittee, 0hird Report, md. 534$. Gistinctionssuch as those %et!een lessee, licensee, invitee, guest, often onl# of gossamerstrength, ought not %e determinative in fashioning procedures ultimatel# refera%le toconstitutional safeguards. 7ee also Chap#an vs. *nited States, 3$ U.7. 614, 616-19*1561+.

t has never %een held that a person !ith re8uisite interest in the premises searched must o!n

the propert# sei&ed in order to have standing in a motion to return and suppress. nlioto vs.*nited States, 216 A. 7upp. = *1563+, a )oo''eeper for several corporations from !hoseapartment the corporate records !ere sei&ed successfull# moved for their return. n *nitedStates vs. ntonelli, !ire'or6s Co., $3 A. 7upp. =94, =93 *F G. ?. I. 153+, the corporation:spresident successfull# moved for the return and suppression is to him of %oth personal andcorporate documents sei&ed from his home during the course of an illegal search(

0he la'ful possession %# ntonelli of documents and propert#, either his o'n or thecorporation0s !as entitled to protection against unreasona%le search and sei&ure.Under the circumstances in the case at %ar, the search and sei&ure !ereunreasona%le and unla!ful. 0he motion for the return of sei&ed article and thesuppression of the evidence so o%tained should %e granted. *Emphasis supplied+.

0ime !as !hen onl# a person !ho had propert# in interest in either the place searched or thearticles sei&e had the necessar# standing to invo'e the protection of the e@clusionar# rule. )utin MacDonald vs. *nite States, 33$ U.7. 61 *15=+, Justice Ro%ert Jac'son joined %# JusticeAeli@ Aran'furter, advanced the vie! that even a guest ma# e@pect the shelter of the rooftree heis under against criminal intrusion. 0his vie! finall# %ecame the official vie! of the U.7.7upreme ourt and !as articulated in *nited States vs. Jeffers, 32 U.7 = *15$1+. ?ine #earslater, in 1564, in Jones vs. *nite States, 362 U.7. 2$9, 269, the U.7. 7upreme ourt !ent a stepfurther. Jones !as a mere guest in the apartment unla!full# searched %ut the ourt nonethelessdeclared that the e@clusionar# rule protected him as !ell. 0he concept of person aggrieved %#an unla!ful search and sei&ure !as enlarged to include an#one legitimatel# on premise !herethe search occurs.

7hortl# after the U.7. 7upreme ourt:s Jonesdecision the U.7. ourt of ppeals for the Aifthircuit held that the defendant organi&er, sole stoc'holder and president of a corporation hadstanding in a mail fraud prosecution against him to demand the return and suppression ofcorporate propert#. 7enzel vs. *nited States, 256 A 2d 6$4, 6$2 *$th ir. 1561+, supra. 0he court


6/94

conclude that the defendant had standing on t!o independent grounds( !irst 3he had asufficient interest in the propert# sei&ed, and second 3he had an ade8uate interest in thepremises searched *just li'e in the case at %ar+. postal inspector had unla!full# searched thecorporation: premises and had sei&ed most of the corporation:s %oo' and records. /oo'ingto Jones, the court o%served(

Jones clearl# tells us, therefore, !hat is not re8uired 8ualif# one as a personaggrieved %# an unla!ful search and sei&ure. t tells us that appellant should nothave %een precluded from o%jecting to the Postal nspector:s search and sei&ure ofthe corporation:s %oo's and records merel# %ecause the appellant did not sho!o!nership or possession of the %oo's and records or a su%stantial possessor#interest in the invade premises . . . *7enzel vs. *nited States, 256 A. 2d at 6$1+. .

7enzel!as soon follo!ed %# 8illano vs. *nited States, 314 A. 2d 6=4, 6=3, *14th ir. 1562+.n 8illano, police officers sei&ed t!o note%oo's from a des' in the defendant:s place ofemplo#ment the defendant did not claim o!nership of either he asserted that severalemplo#ees *including himself+ used the note%oo's. 0he ourt held that the emplo#ee had aprotected interest and that there also !as an invasion of privac#.)oth 7enzeland 8illanoconsidered also the fact that the search and sei&ure !ere directed atthe moving defendant. 7enzel vs. *nited States, 256 A. 2d at 6=2 8illano vs. *nited States, 314A. 2d at 6=3.

n a case in !hich an attorne# closed his la! office, placed his files in storage and !ent to

Puerto Rico, the ourt of ppeals for the Eighth ircuit recogni&ed his standing to move to8uash as unreasona%le search and sei&ure under the Aourth mendment of the U.7.onstitution a grand jur# su%poena duces tecu# directed to the custodian of his files. 0he>overnment contended that the petitioner had no standing %ecause the %oo's and papers !ereph#sicall# in the possession of the custodian, and %ecause the su%poena !as directed againstthe custodian. 0he court rejected the contention, holding that

7ch!immer legall# had such possession, control and unrelin8uished personal rights inthe %oo's and papers as not to ena%le the 8uestion of unreasona%le search andsei&ure to %e escaped through the mere procedural device of compelling a third-part#na'ed possessor to produce and deliver them. Sch'i##er vs. *nited States, 232 A.2d =$$, =61 *=th ir. 15$6+.

((rieved person doctrine 'here the search 'arrant s pri#aril% directed a(ainst said person(ives standin(.

0he latest United 7tates decision s8uarel# in point is *nited States vs. 4irrell, 22 A. 7upp. 151*156$, U.7.G.. 7.G.?.I.+. 0he defendant had stored !ith an attorne# certain files and papers,!hich attorne#, %# the name of Gunn, !as not, at the time of the sei&ing of the records, )irrell:sattorne#. Gunn, in turn, had stored most of the records at his home in the countr# and on afarm !hich, according to Gunn:s affidavit, !as under his *Gunn:s+ control and management.0he papers turned out to %e private, personal and %usiness papers together !ith corporate%oo's and records of certain unnamed corporations in !hich )irrell did not even claimo!nership. *ll of these t#pe records !ere sei&ed in the case at %ar+. ?evertheless, the searchin )irrell !as held invalid %# the court !hich held that even though )irrell did not o!n thepremises !here the records !ere stored, he had standing to move for the return ofallthepapers and properties sei&ed. 0he court, rel#ing on Jones vs. *.S., supra *.S. vs. ntonelli!ire'or6s Co., $3 A. 7upp. =94, ff:d 1$$ A. 2d 631( 7enzel vs. *.S., supra: and Sch'i##er vs.*.S., supra, pointed out that

t is over!helmingl# esta%lished that the searches here in 8uestion !ere directedsolel# and e@clusivel# against )irrell. 0he onl# person suggested in the papers ashaving violated the la! !as )irrell. 0he first search !arrant descri%ed the records ashaving %een used in committing a violation of 0itle 1=, United 7tates ode, 7ection131, %# the use of the mails %# one /o!ell . )irrell, . . . 0he second search !arrant!as captioned( *nited States of #erica vs. 5o'ell M. 4irrell. *p. 15=+

Possession *actual or constructive+, no less than o!nership, gives standing to move tosuppress. 7uch !as the rule even %efore Jones. *p. 155+

f, as thus indicated )irrell had at least constructive possession of the records stored!ith Gunn, it matters not !hether he had an# interest in the premises searched. 7eealso Jeffers v. *nited States, == U.7. ppl. G.. $=, 1=9 A. 2d 5= *15$4+, affirmed32 U.7. =, 92 7. t. 53, 56 /. Ed. $5 *15$1+.

0he ruling in the 4irrell case !as reaffirmed on motion for reargument the United 7tates did notappeal from this decision. 0he factual situation in 4irrell is stri'ingl# similar to the case of thepresent petitioners as in 4irrell, man# personal and corporate papers !ere sei&ed frompremises not petitioners: famil# residences as in 4irrell,the searches !ere PRR/IGRE0EG 7;/E0I ?G EK/U7LE/I against the petitioners. 7till %oth t#pes of documents!ere suppressed in 4irrell %ecause of the illegal search. n the case at %ar, the petitionersconnection !ith the premises raided is much closer than in 4irrell.

0hus, the petitioners have full standing to move for the 8uashing of all the !arrants regardless!hether these !ere directed against residences in the narro! sense of the !ord, as long as thedocuments !ere personal papers of the petitioners or *to the e@tent that the# !ere corporatepapers+ !ere held %# them in a personal capacit# or under their personal control.

Prescinding a from the foregoing, this ourt, at all events, should order the return to thepetitioners allpersonalandprivate papers and effects sei&ed, no matter !here these !eresei&ed, !hether from their residences or corporate offices or an# other place or places.0he uncontradicted s!orn statements of the petitioners in their, various pleadings su%mitted tothis ourt indisputa%l# sho! that amongst the things sei&ed from the corporate offices and otherplaces !erepersonal andprivate papers and effects %elonging to the petitioners.

f there should %e an# categori&ation of the documents, papers and things !hich !here theo%jects of the unla!ful searches and sei&ures, su%mit that the grouping should %e(*a+personal orprivate papers of the petitioners !ere the# !ere unla!full# sei&ed, %e it theirfamil# residences offices, !arehouses and"or premises o!ned and"or possessed *actuall# orconstructivel#+ %# them as sho!n in all the search and in the s!orn applications filed in securingthe void search !arrants and *%+ purel# corporate papers %elonging to corporations. Under suchcategori&ation or grouping, the determination of !hich unla!full# sei&ed papers, documents andthings arepersonal;private of the petitioners orpurel% corporate papers !ill have to %e left to thelo!er courts !hich issued the void search !arrants in ultimatel# effecting the suppression and"orreturn of the said documents.

nd as une8uivocall# indicated %# the authorities a%ove cited, the petitioners li'e!ise have clearlegal standing to move for the suppression ofpurel% corporate papers as President and"or>eneral anager of the corporations involved as specificall# mentioned in the void search

!arrants.


7/94

Ainall#, must articulate m# persuasion that although the cases cited in m# dis8uisition !erecriminal prosecutions, the great clauses of the constitutional proscription on illegal searches andsei&ures do not !ithhold the mantle of their protection from cases not criminal in origin or nature.

G.R. No. 81561 Janua/* 18, 1991

PEOPLE O+ THE PHILIPPINES, plaintiff-appelleevs.AN#RE 4ARTI, accused-appellant.

The Solicitor General for plaintiff


8/94

agents, and a photographer, !ent to the Re#es: office at Ermita, anila *tsn,p. 34, ;cto%er 6, 15=9+.

Job )e%es brou(ht out the bo& in 'hich appellant0s pac6a(es 'ere placed

and, in the presence of the N4A a(ents, opened the top flaps, re#oved the

st%roon&ales, 1$ 7R 6=9 C15=9D See also7ala&ar v. R ?o. =1$14,arch 1, 1554+.


9/94

t must %e noted, ho!ever, that in all those cases adverted to, the evidence so o%tained !ereinvaria%l# procured %# the 7tate acting through the medium of its la! enforcers or otherauthori&ed government agencies.

;n the other hand, the case at %ar assumes a peculiar character since the evidence sought to%e e@cluded !as primaril# discovered and o%tained %# a private person, acting in a privatecapacit# and !ithout the intervention and participation of 7tate authorities. Under thecircumstances, can accused"appellant validl# claim that his constitutional right againstunreasona%le searches and sei&ure has %een violatedN 7tated other!ise, ma# an act of aprivate individual, allegedl# in violation of appellant:s constitutional rights, %e invo'ed against the7tateN

Fe hold in the negative. n the a%sence of governmental interference, the li%erties guaranteed%# the onstitution cannot %e invo'ed against the 7tate.

s this ourt held in 8illanueva v.$uerubin*= 7R 3$ C1592D(

1. This constitutional ri(ht*against unreasona%le search and sei&ure+ refersto the i##unit% of one0s person, 'hether citizen or alien, fro# interference

b% (overn#ent, included in !hich is his residence, his papers, and otherpossessions. . . .

. . . 0here the state, ho!ever po!erful, does not as such have the accesse@cept under the circumstances a%ove noted, for in the traditionalformulation, his house, ho!ever hum%le, is his castle. Thus is outla'ed an%un'arranted intrusion b% (overn#ent, 'hich is called upon to refrain fro#

an% invasion of his d'ellin( and to respect the privacies of his life. . . . *f.7chermer%er v. alifornia, 3= U7 9$9 C1566D and )o#d v. United 7tates,116 U7 616 C1==6D Emphasis supplied+.

n 4urdeau v.McDo'ell *2$6 U7 6$ *1521+, 1 7 t. $9 6$ /.Ed. 14=+, the ourt there inconstruing the right against unreasona%le searches and sei&ures declared that(

*t+he Aourth mendment gives protection against unla!ful searches andsei&ures, and as sho!n in previous cases, its protection applies to

governmental action. ts origin and histor# clearl# sho! that it !as intendedas a restraint upon the activities of sovereign authorit#, and !as notintended to %e a limitation upon other than governmental agencies asagainst such authorit# it !as the purpose of the Aourth mendment tosecure the citi&en in the right of unmolested occupation of his d!elling andthe possession of his propert#, su%ject to the right of sei&ure %# processdul# served.

0he a%ove ruling !as reiterated in State v.4r%an*$9 P.2d 661 C156=D+ !here a par'ingattendant !ho searched the automo%ile to ascertain the o!ner thereof found marijuana instead,!ithout the 'no!ledge and participation of police authorities, !as declared admissi%le inprosecution for illegal possession of narcotics.

nd again in the 1565 case of 2al6er v.State *25 7.F.2d 121+, it !as held that the search andsei&ure clauses are restraints upon the government and its agents, not upon private individuals

*citin(People v. Potter, 24 al. pp.2d 621, 5 ap. Rptr, =52 *1566+ 7tate v. )ro!n, o., 3517.F.2d 543 *156$+ 7tate v. ;lsen, ;r., 319 P.2d 53= *15$9+.

/i'e!ise appropos is the case of 4ernas v.*S *393 A.2d $19 *1569+. 0he ourt there said(

0he search of !hich appellant complains, ho!ever, !as made %# a privateciti&en the o!ner of a motel in !hich appellant sta#ed overnight and in!hich he left %ehind a travel case containing the evidencecomplained of.0he search !as made on the motel o!ner:s o!n initiative. )ecause of it, he

%ecame suspicious, called the local police, informed them of the %ag:scontents, and made it availa%le to the authorities.

0he fourth amendment and the case la! appl#ing it do not re8uire e@clusionof evidence o%tained through a search %# a private citi&en. Rather, theamendment onl# proscri%es governmental action.

0he contra%and in the case at %ar having come into possession of the >overnment !ithout thelatter transgressing appellant:s rights against unreasona%le search and sei&ure, the ourt seesno cogent reason !h# the same should not %e admitted against him in the prosecution of theoffense charged.

ppellant, ho!ever, !ould li'e this court to %elieve that ?) agents made an illegal search and

sei&ure of the evidence later on used in prosecuting the case !hich resulted in his conviction.

0he postulate advanced %# accused"appellant needs to %e clarified in t!o da#s. n %othinstances, the argument stands to fall on its o!n !eight, or the lac' of it.

Airst, the factual considerations of the case at %ar readil# foreclose the proposition that ?)agents conducted an illegal search and sei&ure of the prohi%ited merchandise. Records of thecase clearl# indicate that it !as r. Jo% Re#es, the proprietor of the for!arding agenc#, !homade search"inspection of the pac'ages. 7aid inspection !as reasona%le and a standardoperating procedure on the part of r. Re#es as a precautionar# measure %efore deliver# ofpac'ages to the )ureau of ustoms or the )ureau of Posts *07?, ;cto%er 6 B 9, 15=9, pp. 1$-1= pp. 9-= ;riginal Records, pp. 115-122 169-16=+.

t !ill %e recalled that after Re#es opened the %o@ containing the illicit cargo, he too' samples ofthe same to the ?) and later summoned the agents to his place of %usiness. 0hereafter, heopened the parcel containing the rest of the shipment and entrusted the care and custod#thereof to the ?) agents. learl#, the ?) agents made no search and sei&ure, much less anillegal one, contrar# to the postulate of accused"appellant.

7econd, the mere presence of the ?) agents did not convert the reasona%le search effected %#Re#es into a !arrantless search and sei&ure proscri%ed %# the onstitution. erel# to o%serveand loo' at that !hich is in plain sight is not a search.


10/94

n Gand% v.2at6ins*239 A. 7upp. 266 C156D+, it !as li'e!ise held that !here the propert# !asta'en into custod# of the police at the specific re8uest of the manager and !here the search !asinitiall# made %# the o!ner there is no unreasona%le search and sei&ure !ithin the constitutionalmeaning of the term.

0hat the )ill of Rights em%odied in the onstitution is not meant to %e invo'ed against acts ofprivate individuals finds support in the deli%erations of the onstitutional ommission. 0rue, theli%erties guaranteed %# the fundamental la! of the land must al!a#s %e su%ject to protection.)ut protection against !homN ommissioner )ernas in his sponsorship speech in the )ill ofRights ans!ers the 8uer# !hich he himself posed, as follo!s(

Airst, the general reflections. 0he protection of fundamental li%erties in theessence of constitutional democrac#. Protection against !homN Protectiona(ainst the state.The 4ill of )i(hts (overns the relationship bet'een theindividual and the state.Ats concern is not the relation bet'een individuals,bet'een a private individual and other individuals.2hat the 4ill of )i(htsdoes is to declare so#e forbidden zones in the private sphere inaccessible

to an% po'er holder. *7ponsorship 7peech of ommissioner )ernas ,Record of the onstitutional ommission, Lol. 1, p. 69 Jul# 19, 15=6Emphasis supplied+

0he constitutional proscription against unla!ful searches and sei&ures therefore applies as arestraint directed onl# against the government and its agencies tas'ed !ith the enforcement of

the la!. 0hus, it could onl# %e invo'ed against the 7tate to !hom the restraint against ar%itrar#and unreasona%le e@ercise of po!er is imposed.

f the search is made upon the re8uest of la! enforcers, a !arrant must generall# %e firstsecured if it is to pass the test of constitutionalit#. erman national, !hom appellant met in a pu% along Ermita, anila( that in thecourse of their 34-minute conversation, ichael re8uested him to ship the pac'ages and gavehim P2,444.44 for the cost of the shipment since the >erman national !as a%out to leave thecountr# the ne@t da# *;cto%er 1$, 15=9, 07?, pp. 2-14+.

Rather than give the appearance of veracit#, !e find appellant:s disclaimer as incredulous, self-serving and contrar# to human e@perience. t can easil# %e fa%ricated. n ac8uaintance !ith a


11/94

complete stranger struc' in half an hour could not have pushed a man to entrust the shipment offour *+ parcels and shell out P2,444.44 for the purpose and for appellant to readil# accede tocompl# !ith the underta'ing !ithout first ascertaining its contents. s stated %# the trial court,*a+ person !ould not simpl# entrust contra%and and of considera%le value at that as themarijuana flo!ering tops, and the cash amount of P2,444.44 to a complete stranger li'e the

ccused. 0he ccused, on the other hand, !ould not simpl# accept such underta'ing to ta'ecustod# of the pac'ages and ship the same from a complete stranger on his mere sa#-so*Gecision, p. 15, )ollo, p. 51+. s to !h# he readil# agreed to do the errand, appellant failed toe@plain. Genials, if unsu%stantiated %# clear and convincing evidence, are negative self-servingevidence !hich deserve no !eight in la! and cannot %e given greater evidentiar# !eight than

the testimon# of credi%le !itnesses !ho testif# on affirmative matters *People v. Es8uillo, 1917R $91 C15=5D People vs. 7ariol, 19 7R 239 C15=5D+.

ppellant:s %are denial is even made more suspect considering that, as per records of thenterpol, he !as previousl# convicted of possession of hashish %# the Hleve ourt in the AederalRepu%lic of >erman# on Januar# 1, 15=2 and that the consignee of the frustrated shipment,Falter Aier&, also a 7!iss national, !as li'e!ise convicted for drug a%use and is just a%out anhour:s drive from appellant:s residence in Murich, 7!it&erland *07?, ;cto%er =, 15=9, p. 66;riginal Records, p. 2 Gecision, p. 21 )ollo, p. 53+.

Evidence to %e %elieved, must not onl# proceed from the mouth of a credi%le !itness, %ut it must%e credi%le in itself such as the common e@perience and o%servation of man'ind can approve aspro%a%le under the circumstances *People v. lto, 26 7R 32 C156=D, citin(Gaggers v. Lan

G#'e, 39 ?.J. Eg. 134 see also People v. 7arda, 192 7R 6$1 C15=5D People v. 7unga, 1237R 329 C15=3D+ astaOares v. , 52 7R $69 C1595D+. s records further sho!, appellantdid not even %other to as' ichael:s full name, his complete address or passport num%er.Aurthermore, if indeed, the >erman national !as the o!ner of the merchandise, appellantshould have so indicated in the contract of shipment *E@h. ), ;riginal Records, p. 4+. ;n thecontrar#, appellant signed the contract as the o!ner and shipper thereof giving more !eight tothe presumption that things !hich a person possesses, or e@ercises acts of o!nership over, areo!ned %# him *7ec. $ CjD, Rule 131+. t this point, appellant is therefore estopped to claimother!ise.

Premises considered, !e see no error committed %# the trial court in rendering the assailedjudgment.

Feneral Linson and )eatrice Rosen%erg.

R. JU70E 70EFR0 delivered the opinion of the ourt.

0he petitioner !as convicted in the Gistrict ourt for the 7outhern Gistrict of alifornia under aneight-count indictment charging him !ith transmitting !agering information %# telephone from
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=365&invol=505#511http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=365&invol=505#511http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=365&invol=505#511http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=277&invol=438http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=277&invol=438http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=277&invol=438http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=316&invol=129http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=316&invol=129http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=316&invol=129http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=316&invol=129http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=277&invol=438http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=316&invol=129http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=316&invol=129http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=365&invol=505#511


12/94

/os ngeles to iami and )oston, in violation of a federal statute.1t trial the >overnment !aspermitted, over the petitioner:s o%jection, to introduce evidence of the petitioner:s end oftelephone conversations, overheard %# A) agents !ho had attached an electronic listening andrecording device to the outside of the pu%lic telephone %ooth from !hich he had placed his calls.n affirming his conviction, the ourt of ppeals rejected the contention that the recordings had%een o%tained in violation of the Aourth mendment, C3=5 U.7. 39, 35D %ecause CtDhere !asno ph#sical entrance into the area occupied %# Cthe petitionerD.2 Fe granted certiorari in orderto consider the constitutional 8uestions thus presented.3

0he petitioner has phrased those 8uestions as follo!s(

. Fhether a pu%lic telephone %ooth is a constitutionall# protected area so that evidenceo%tained %# attaching an electronic listening recording device to the top of such a %ooth iso%tained in violation of the right to privac# of the user of the %ooth. C3=5 U.7. 39, 3$4D

). Fhether ph#sical penetration of a constitutionall# protected area is necessar# %efore asearch and sei&ure can %e said to %e violative of the Aourth mendment to the United 7tatesonstitution.

Fe decline to adopt this formulation of the issues. n the first place, the correct solution of Aourthmendment pro%lems is not necessaril# promoted %# incantation of the phrase constitutionall#protected area. 7econdl#, the Aourth mendment cannot %e translated into a generalconstitutional right to privac#. 0hat mendment protects individual privac# against certain 'indsof governmental intrusion, %ut its protections go further, and often have nothing to do !ithprivac# at all. ;ther provisions of the onstitution protect personal privac# from other forms ofgovernmental invasion.$)ut the protection of a person:s general right to privac# - his right to %e

let alone %# other people 6 - is, li'e the C3=5 U.7. 39, 3$1D protection of his propert# and of hisver# life, left largel# to the la! of the individual 7tates.9

)ecause of the misleading !a# the issues have %een formulated, the parties have attachedgreat significance to the characteri&ation of the telephone %ooth from !hich the petitioner placedhis calls. 0he petitioner has strenuousl# argued that the %ooth !as a constitutionall# protectedarea. 0he >overnment has maintained !ith e8ual vigor that it !as not.= )ut this effort to decide!hether or not a given area, vie!ed in the a%stract, is constitutionall# protected deflectsattention from the pro%lem presented %# this case.5 Aor the Aourth mendment protects people,not places. Fhat a person 'no!ingl# e@poses to the pu%lic, even in his o!n home or office, isnot a su%ject of Aourth mendment protection. 7ee /e!is v. United 7tates, 3=$ U.7. 246, 214 United 7tates v. /ee, 29 U.7. $$5, $63 .)ut !hat he see's to preserve as private, even in anarea accessi%le to the pu%lic, ma# %e constitutionall# protected. C3=5 U.7. 39, 3$2D 7ee Riosv. United 7tates,36 U.7. 2$3 E@ parte Jac'son,56 U.7. 929, 933 .

0he >overnment stresses the fact that the telephone %ooth from !hich the petitioner made hiscalls !as constructed partl# of glass, so that he !as as visi%le after he entered it as he !ouldhave %een if he had remained outside. )ut !hat he sought to e@clude !hen he entered the%ooth !as not the intruding e#e - it !as the uninvited ear. overnment contends, ho!ever, that the activities of its agents in this case should not %etested %# Aourth mendment re8uirements, for the surveillance techni8ue the# emplo#edinvolved no ph#sical penetration of the telephone %ooth from !hich the petitioner placed his

calls. t is true that the a%sence of such penetration !as at one time thought to foreclose furtherAourth mendment in8uir#, ;lmstead v. United 7tates,299 U.7. 3=, $9 ,6, 66 >oldman v.

United 7tates,316 U.7. 125, 13-136, for that mendment !as thought to l imit onl# searchesand sei&ures of tangi%le C3=5 U.7. 39, 3$3D propert#.13 )ut CtDhe premise that propert#interests control the right of the >overnment to search and sei&e has %een discredited. Fardenv. overnment:s actions as accurate, it is clear that this surveillance!as so narro!l# circumscri%ed that a dul# authori&ed magistrate, properl# notified of the needfor such investigation, specificall# informed of the %asis on !hich it !as to proceed, and clearl#apprised of the precise intrusion it !ould entail, could constitutionall# have authori&ed, !ithappropriate safeguards, the ver# limited search and sei&ure that the >overnment asserts in facttoo' place. ;nl# last 0erm !e sustained the validit# of C3=5 U.7. 39, 3$$D such anauthori&ation, holding that, under sufficientl# precise and discriminate circumstances, a federalcourt ma# empo!er government agents to emplo# a concealed electronic device for the narro!

and particulari&ed purpose of ascertaining the truth of the . . . allegations of a detailed factualaffidavit alleging the commission of a specific criminal offense. ;s%orn v. United 7tates, 3=$U.7. 323, 325 -334. Giscussing that holding, the ourt in )erger v. ?e! Ior',3== U.7. 1 , saidthat the order authori&ing the use of the electronic device in ;s%orn afforded similarprotections to those . . . of conventional !arrants authori&ing the sei&ure of tangi%le evidence.0hrough those protections, no greater invasion of privac# !as permitted than !as necessar#under the circumstances. d., at $9.16 overnment urges that, %ecause its agents relied upon the decisions in ;lmstead and>oldman, and %ecause the# did no more here than the# might properl# have done !ith prior

judicial sanction, !e should retroactivel# validate their conduct. 0hat !e cannot do. t is apparentthat the agents in this case acted !ith restraint. Iet the inescapa%le fact is that this restraint !asimposed %# the agents themselves, not %# a judicial officer. 0he# !ere not re8uired, %efore

commencing the search, to present their estimate of pro%a%le cause for detached scrutin# %# aneutral magistrate. 0he# !ere not compelled, during the conduct of the search itself, to o%serve
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f1http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f1http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f2http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f2http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f3http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f3http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f4http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f5http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f5http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f6http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f7http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f7http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f8http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f8http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f9http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f9http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=385&invol=206#210http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=385&invol=206#210http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=274&invol=559#563http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=274&invol=559#563http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=364&invol=253http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=364&invol=253http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=364&invol=253http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=96&invol=727#733http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=96&invol=727#733http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f10http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f11http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f11http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f12http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f12http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=277&invol=438#457http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=277&invol=438#457http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=277&invol=438#457http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=316&invol=129#134http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=316&invol=129#134http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f13http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=387&invol=294#304http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=387&invol=294#304http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=365&invol=505#511http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=365&invol=505#511http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=365&invol=505#511http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f14http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f15http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=385&invol=323#329http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=385&invol=323#329http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=385&invol=323#329http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=388&invol=41http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=388&invol=41http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f16http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f16http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f17http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f17http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f1http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f2http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f3http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f4http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f5http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f6http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f7http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f8http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f9http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=385&invol=206#210http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=274&invol=559#563http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=364&invol=253http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=96&invol=727#733http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f10http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f11http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f12http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=277&invol=438#457http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=316&invol=129#134http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f13http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=387&invol=294#304http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=365&invol=505#511http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=365&invol=505#511http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f14http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f15http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=385&invol=323#329http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=385&invol=323#329http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=388&invol=41http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f16http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347#f17


13/94

precise limits esta%lished in advance %# a specific court order. ?or !ere the# directed, after thesearch had %een completed, to notif# the authori&ing magistrate in detail of all that had %eensei&ed. n the a%sence of such safeguards, this ourt has never sustained a search upon thesole ground that officers reasona%l# e@pected to find evidence of a particular crime andvoluntaril# confined their activities to the least intrusive C3=5 U.7. 39, 3$9D means consistent!ith that end. 7earches conducted !ithout !arrants have %een held unla!ful not!ithstandingfacts un8uestiona%l# sho!ing pro%a%le cause, gnello v. United 7tates,265 U.7. 24, 33 ,forthe onstitution re8uires that the deli%erate, impartial judgment of a judicial officer . . . %einterposed %et!een the citi&en and the police . . . . Fong 7un v. United 7tates, 391 U.7. 91,=1 -=2. ;ver and again this ourt has emphasi&ed that the mandate of the CAourthD

mendment re8uires adherence to judicial processes, United 7tates v. Jeffers,32 U.7. =,

$1 , and that searches conducted outside the judicial process, !ithout prior approval %# judge ormagistrate, are per se unreasona%le under the Aourth mendment 1= -su%ject onl# to a fe!specificall# esta%lished and !ell-delineated [email protected]

t is difficult to imagine ho! an# of those e@ceptions could ever appl# to the sort of search andsei&ure involved in this case. Even electronic surveillance su%stantiall# contemporaneous !ithan individual:s arrest could hardl# %e deemed an incident of that arrest.24 C3=5 U.7. 39,3$=D ?or could the use of electronic surveillance !ithout prior authori&ation %e justified ongrounds of hot pursuit.21nd, of course, the ver# nature of electronic surveillance precludesits use pursuant to the suspect:s consent. 22

0he >overnment does not 8uestion these %asic principles. Rather, it urges the creation of a ne!e@ception to cover this case.23 t argues that surveillance of a telephone %ooth should %ee@empted from the usual re8uirement of advance authori&ation %# a magistrate upon a sho!ingof pro%a%le cause. Fe cannot agree. ;mission of such authori&ation

%#passes the safeguards provided %# an o%jective predetermination of pro%a%le cause, andsu%stitutes instead the far less relia%le procedure of an after-the-event justification for the . . .search, too li'el# to %e su%tl# influenced %# the familiar shortcomings of hindsight judgment.)ec' v. ;hio,395 U.7. =5, 56.

nd %#passing a neutral predetermination of the scope of a search leaves individuals securefrom Aourth mendment C3=5 U.7. 39, 3$5D violations onl# in the discretion of the police. d.,at 59.

0hese considerations do not vanish !hen the search in 8uestion is transferred from the settingof a home, an office, or a hotel room to that of a telephone %ooth. Fherever a man ma# %e, he isentitled to 'no! that he !ill remain free from unreasona%le searches and sei&ures. 0hegovernment agents here ignored the procedure of antecedent justification . . . that is central tothe Aourth mendment, 2 a procedure that !e hold to %e a constitutional precondition of the'ind of electronic surveillance involved in this case. )ecause the surveillance here failed to meet

that condition, and %ecause it led to the petitioner:s conviction, the judgment must %e reversed.t is so ordered.

4R. JU70E R7e/ @7, 197@

OS!AR ILLANEA, petitioner,vs.HON. J#GE JOSE R. ERBIN, P/e&$$n Jue, !ou/) o +$/&) In&)an'e o Ne/o&

O''$en)a, an PEOPLE O+ THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

Bulo and ssociates for petitioner.

Office of the Solicitor General ntonio P. 4arredo, Solicitor Pedro . )a#irez and ssistant Cit%

!iscal >4acolod? ndres M. 4a%ona for respondents.

+ERNAN#O, J.:p

n accordance !ith the polic# to !hich this ourt is committed, namel#, that a colora%le claim ofa denial of a constitutional right should not %e ignored, petitioner, in this certiorariand prohi%itionproceeding, succeeded in having his alleged grievance against respondent Judge, the


14/94

asserting that the lo!er court !as !ithout jurisdiction and that the matter had %ecome moot andacademic, %ecause the mone# !as spent in good faith %# him for the pa#ment of the !ages ofhis la%orers, it !as contended that there !as a violation of his constitutional rights not to %edeprived of propert# !ithout due process of la! and to %e free from unreasona%le searches andsei&ures.57u%se8uentl#, after a repl# to such opposition and a rejoinder !ere su%mitted, therespondent Judge issued the challenged order dated June 1, 1566, the dispositive portion of!hich reads( Cn vie! thereofD, the accused ;scar Lillanueva is here%# ordered to return anddeliver to the Provincial ommander, )acolod it#, the amount of P14,3$4.44 and the !oodencontainer stated in the receipt issued %# the accused dated pril 1, 1566, !ithin fort#-eight *=+hours upon receipt of this order. 6

0here !as a motion for reconsideration, %ut it !as denied on June 11, 1566. 7


15/94

!ooden container. Fith regard to the contention mone# in the %o@ is a part and parcel of thegam%ling paraphernalia sei&ed %# the raiding part# of the Philippine onsta%ular# in the houseof the accused ;scar Lillanueva !ho is at present facing the charge for violation of the gam%lingla!. @0

Even if the recital of the antecedents of the challenged order !ere less compelling in thuslending support to !hat !as done %# respondent Judge, still petitioner had failed to ma'e out acase. Aor, had he entertained dou%ts as to the validit# of the issuance of the search !arrant orthe manner in !hich it !as e@ecuted, he !as called upon to esta%lish such a claim in court.


16/94

0he pu%lic respondents, represented %# the 7olicitor >eneral, oppose the petitioncontending inter alia that petitioners lac' standing to file the instant petition for the# are not theproper parties to institute the action.

ccording to the petitioners, the follo!ing saturation drives !ere conducted in etro anila(

1. arch $, 15=9 at a%out 5(34 P in 0indalo, Hagitingan, and agdalena 7treets, 0ondo,anila.

2. June l5, 15=9 at a%out l4(44 P in ata 7treet, Panda# Pira E@tension and 7an 7e%astian7treet, 0ondo, anila.

3. Jul# 24, 15=9 at a%out =(44 in )ang'usa# 7treet, 0ondo, anila.

. ugust 11 to l3, 15=9 %et!een 11(44 P and 2(44 in si@ %loc's along roma )each up to


17/94

Airst, the respondents have legal authorit# to conduct saturation drives. nd second, the# allegethat the accusations of the petitioners a%out a deli%erate disregard for human rights are totallies.

nsofar as the legal %asis for saturation drives is concerned, the respondents cite rticle L,7ection 19 of the onstitution !hich provides(

0he President shall have control of all the e@ecutive departments, %ureausand offices.7e shall ensure that the la's be faithfull% e&ecuted. *Emphasis

supplied +

0he# also cite 7ection 1= of the same rticle !hich provides(

0he President shall %e the ommander-in-hief of all armed forces of thePhilippines and !henever it %ecomes necessar#, he ma# call out sucharmed forces to prevent or suppress la!less violence, invasion orre%ellion. ...

0here can %e no 8uestion that under ordinar# circumstances, the police action of the naturedescri%ed %# the petitioners !ould %e illegal and %lantantl# violative of the e@press guarantees ofthe )ill of Rights. f the militar# and the police must conduct concerted campaigns to flush outand catch criminal elements, such drives must %e consistent !ith the constitutional and statutor#

rights of all the people affected %# such actions.

0here is, of course, nothing in the onstitution !hich denies the authorit# of the hief E@ecutive,invo'ed %# the 7olicitor >eneral, to order police actions to stop una%ated criminalit#, risingla!lessness, and alarming communist activities. 0he onstitution grants to >overnment thepo!er to see' and cripple su%versive movements !hich !ould %ring do!n constituted authorit#and su%stitute a regime !here individual li%erties are suppressed as a matter of polic# in thename of securit# of the 7tate. overnment cannot adopt the same reprehensi%le methods of authoritarians#stems %oth of the right and of the left, the enlargement of !hose spheres of influence it istr#ing hard to suppress. ;ur democratic institutions ma# still %e fragile %ut the# are not in theleast %it strengthened through violations of the constitutional protections !hich are theirdistinguishing features.

n )oan v. Gonzales*1$ 7R 6=9 654-651 C15=6D+, the ourt stated(

;ne of the most precious rights of the citi&en in a free societ# is the right to%e left alone in the privac# of his o!n house. 0hat right has ancient roots,dating %ac' through the mists of histor# to the might# English 'ings in theirfortresses of po!er. Even then, the lo!l# su%ject had his o!n castle !herehe !as monarch of all he surve#ed. 0his !as his hum%le cottage from !hichhe could %ar his sovereign lord and all the forces of the ro!n.

0hat right has endured through the ages al%eit onl# in a fe! li%ertarianregimes. 0heir num%er, regretta%l#, continues to d!indle against theonslaughts of authoritarianism. Fe are among the fortunate fe!, a%le againto enjo# this right after the ordeal of the past despotism. Fe must cherishand protect it all the more no! %ecause it is li'e a prodigal son returning.

0hat right is guaranteed in the follo!ing provisions of rticle L of the 1593onstitution(

7E. 3. 0he right of the people to %e secure in their persons, houses,papers and effects against unreasona%le searches and sei&ures of!hatever nature and for an# purpose shall not %e violated, and no search!arrant or !arrant of arrest shall issue e@cept upon pro%a%le cause to %edetermined %# the judge, or such other responsi%le officer as ma# %eauthori&ed %# la!, after e@amination under oath or affirmation of thecomplainant and the !itnesses he ma# produce, and particularl# descri%ing

the place to %e searched, and the persons or things to %e sei&ed.

@@@ @@@ @@@

;nl# last #ear, the ourt again issued this reminder in th Centur% !o& !il# Corporation v.Court of ppeals*16 7R 6$$ 664- 661 C15==D+(

0his constitutional right protects a citi&en against !anton and unreasona%leinvasion of his privac# and li%ert# as to his person, papers and effects. Fehave e@plained in the case ofPeople vs. 4ur(os*1 7R 1+citing 8illanueva v. $uerubin *= 7R 3$+ !h# the right is so important(

t is deference to one:s personalit# that lies at the core of this right, %ut itcould %e also loo'ed upon as a recognition of a constitutionall# protectedarea, primaril# one:s home, %ut not necessaril# thereto confined. *f.


18/94

s8ueamishness or private sentimentalism a%out com%atting crime tooenergeticall#. 0his is conduct that shoc's the conscience. llegall# %rea'inginto the privac# of the petitioner, the struggle to open his mouth and remove!hat !as there, the forci%le e@traction of his stomach:s contents this courseof proceeding %# agents of government to o%tain evidence is %ound tooffend even hardened sensi%ilities. 0he# are methods too close to the rac'and the scre! to permit of constitutional differentiation.

t is significant that it is not the police actionperse!hich is impermissi%le and !hich should %eprohi%ited. Rather, it is the procedure used or in the !ords of the court, methods !hich offend

even hardened sensi%ilities. n4reithaupt v. bra# *3$2 U7 32, 1 /. Ed. 2nd = C15$9D+, thesame court validated the use of evidence, in this case %lood samples involuntaril# ta'en from thepetitioner, !here there !as nothing %rutal or offensive in the ta'ing. 0he ourt stated(

)asicall# the distinction rests on the fact that there is nothing :%rutal: or:offensive: in the ta'ing of a sample of %lood !hen done, as in this case,under the protective e#e of a ph#sician. 0o %e sure, the driver here !asunconscious !hen the %lood !as ta'en, %ut the a%sence of consciousconsent, !ithout more, does not necessaril# render the ta'ing a violation ofa constitutional light and certainl# the rest !as administered here !ould not%e considered offensive %# even the most delicate. Aurthermore, dueprocess is not measured %# the #ardstic' of personal reaction or thesph#gmogram of the most sensitive person, %ut %# that !hole communit#

sense of :decenc# and fairness that has %een !oven %# commone@perience into the fa%ric of accepta%le conduct....

0he individual:s right to immunit# from such invasion of his %od# !as considered as farout!eighed %# the value of its deterrent effect on the evil sought to %e avoided %# the policeaction.

t is clear, therefore, that the nature of the affirmative relief hinges closel# on the determination ofthe e@act facts surrounding a particular case.

0he violations of human rights alleged %# the petitioners are serious. f an orderl# procedureascertains their truth, not onl# a !rit of prohi%ition %ut criminal prosecutions !ould immediatel#issue as a matter of course. persistent pattern of !holesale and gross a%use of civil li%erties,

as alleged in the petition, has no place in civili&ed societ#.

;n the other hand, according to the respondents, the statements made %# the petitioners are aco#plete lie.

0he 7olicitor >eneral argues(

0his a complete lie.

Just the contrar#, the# had %een conducted !ith due regard to human rights.?ot onl# that, the# !ere intelligentl# and carefull# planned months ahead ofthe actual operation. 0he# !ere e@ecuted in coordination !ith %aranga#officials !ho pleaded !ith their constituents to su%mit themselves voluntaril#for character and personal verification. /ocal and foreign correspondents,

!ho had joined these operations, !itnessed and recorded the events thattranspired relative thereto. *fter ;peration Reports( ?ovem%er $, 15=9,

nne@ 12 ?ovem%er 24, 15=9, nne@ 13 ?ovem%er 2, 15=9, nne@ 1+.0hat is !h# in all the drives so far conducted, the alleged victims !honum%ered thousands had not themselves complained.

n her speech during turn-over rites on Januar# 26, 15=9 at ampguinaldo, President 8uino %randed all accusations of deli%erate disregardfor human rights as :total lies:.


19/94

nternational irport area. ?ot one of the several thousand persons treated in the illegal andinhuman manner descri%ed %# the petitioners appears as a petitioner or has come %efore a trialcourt to present the 'ind of evidence admissi%le in courts of justice. oreover, there must have%een tens of thousands of near%# residents !ho !ere inconvenienced in addition to the severalthousand allegedl# arrested. ?one of those arrested has apparentl# %een charged and none ofthose affected has apparentl# complained.

particularl# intriguing aspect of the 7olicitor >eneral:s comments is the statement that localand foreign co-respondents actuall# joined the saturation drives and !itnessed and recorded theevents. n other !ords, the activities sought to %e completel# proscri%ed !ere in full vie! of

media. 0he sight of hooded men allegedl# %eing used to fingerpoint suspected su%versives!ould have %een good television cop#. f true, this !as pro%a%l# effected a!a# from theu%i8uitous e#e of the 0L cameras or, as the 7olicitor >eneral contends, the allegation is acomplete lie.

0he latest attempt to stage a coup d0etat!here several thousand mem%ers of the rmed Aorcesof the Philippines sought to overthro! the present >overnment introduces another aspect of thepro%lem and illustrates 8uite clearl# !h# those directl# affected %# human rights violationsshould %e the ones to institute court actions and !h# evidence of !hat actuall# transpired shouldfirst %e developed %efore petitions are filed !ith this ourt.

Fhere there is large scale mutin# or actual re%ellion, the police or militar# ma# go in force to thecom%at areas, enter affected residences or %uildings, round up suspected re%els and other!ise

8uell the mutin# or re%ellion !ithout having to secure search !arrants and !ithout violating the)ill of Rights. 0his is e@actl# !hat happened in the Fhite Plains 7u%division and the commercialcenter of a'ati during the first !ee' of Gecem%er, 15=5.

0he areal target &onings in this petition !ere intended to flush out su%versives and criminalelements particularl# %ecause of the %latant assassinations of pu%lic officers and police officials%# elements supposedl# coddled %# the communities !here the drives !ere conducted.

t is clear from the pleadings of %oth petitioners and respondents, ho!ever, that there !as nore%ellion or criminal activit# similar to that of the attempted coup d0 etats.0here appears to have%een no impediment to securing search !arrants or !arrants of arrest %efore an# houses !eresearched or individuals roused from sleep !ere arrested. 0here is no strong sho!ing that theo%jectives sought to %e attained %# the areal &oning could not %e achieved even as the rights

of s8uatter and lo! income families are full# protected.

Fhere a violation of human rights specificall# guaranteed %# the onstitution is involved, it is thedut# of the court to stop the transgression and state !here even the a!esome po!er of the statema# not encroach upon the rights of the individual. t is the dut# of the court to ta'e remedialaction even in cases such as the present petition !here the petitioners do not complain that the#!ere victims of the police actions, !here no names of an# of the thousands of alleged victimsare given, and !here the pra#er is a general one to stop all police saturation drives, as long asthe ourt is convinced that the event actuall# happened.

0he ourt %elieves it highl# pro%a%le that some violations !ere actuall# committed. 0his is soinspite of the alleged pleas of %aranga# officials for the thousands of residents to su%mitthemselves voluntaril# for character and personal verification. Fe cannot imagine police actionsof the magnitude descri%ed in the petitions and admitted %# the respondents, %eing underta'en!ithout some undisciplined soldiers and policemen committing certain a%uses.


20/94

7; ;RGEREG.

G.R. No. L-6;@61 #e'e?>e/ @6, 198;

JOSE BRGOS, SR., JOSE BRGOS, JR., BAYANI SORIANO an J. BRGOS 4E#IA

SERI!ES, IN!.,petitioners,vs.THE !HIE+ O+ STA++, AR4E# +OR!ES O+ THE PHILIPPINES, THE !HIE+, PHILIPPINE

!ONSTABLARY, THE !HIE+ LEGAL O++I!ER, PRESI#ENTIAL SE!RITY !O44AN#,

THE J#GE A#O!ATE GENERAL, ET AL., respondents.


21/94

5orenzo M. Taada, 2i(berto =. Taada, Martiniano 8ivo, u(usto Sanchez, Jo6er P. rro%o,

Je1o#ar 4ina% and )ene Sa(uisa( for petitioners.

The Solicitor General for respondents.

ES!OLIN, J.:

ssailed in this petition for certiorari prohi%ition and mandamus !ith preliminar# mandator# andprohi%itor# injunction is the validit# of t!o C2D search !arrants issued on Gecem%er 9, 15=2 %#respondent Judge Ernani ru&-Pano, E@ecutive Judge of the then ourt of Airst nstance ofRi&al Cue&on it#D, under !hich the premises 'no!n as ?o. 15, Road 3, Project 6, ue&onit#, and 9= Units B G, R7 )uilding, ue&on venue, ue&on it#, %usiness addresses ofthe etropolitan ail and Fe Aorum ne!spapers, respectivel#, !ere searched, and officeand printing machines, e8uipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles used in theprinting, pu%lication and distri%ution of the said ne!spapers, as !ell as numerous papers,documents, %oo's and other !ritten literature alleged to %e in the possession and control ofpetitioner Jose )urgos, Jr. pu%lisher-editor of the Fe Aorum ne!spaper, !ere sei&ed.

Petitioners further pra# that a !rit of preliminar# mandator# and prohi%itor# injunction %e issuedfor the return of the sei&ed articles, and that respondents, particularl# the hief /egal ;fficer,

Presidential 7ecurit# ommand, the Judge dvocate >eneral, AP, the it# Aiscal of ue&onit#, their representatives, assistants, su%alterns, su%ordinates, su%stitute or successors %eenjoined from using the articles thus sei&ed as evidence against petitioner Jose )urgos, Jr. andthe other accused in riminal ase ?o. - 4229=2 of the Regional 0rial ourt of ue&on it#,entitled People v. Jose 4ur(os, Jr. etal. 1

n our Resolution dated June 21, 15=3, respondents !ere re8uired to ans!er the petition. 0heplea for preliminar# mandator# and prohi%itor# injunction !as set for hearing on June 2=, 15=3,later reset to Jul# 9, 15=3, on motion of the 7olicitor >eneral in %ehalf of respondents.

t the hearing on Jul# 9, 15=3, the 7olicitor >eneral, !hile opposing petitioners: pra#er for a !ritof preliminar# mandator# injunction, manifested that respondents !ill not use theaforementioned articles as evidence in the aforementioned case until final resolution of thelegalit# of the sei&ure of the aforementioned articles. ... @Fith this manifestation, the pra#er forpreliminar# prohi%itor# injunction !as rendered moot and academic.

Respondents !ould have this ourt dismiss the petition on the ground that petitioners had cometo this ourt !ithout having previousl# sought the 8uashal of the search !arrants %eforerespondent judge. ndeed, petitioners, %efore impugning the validit# of the !arrants %efore thisourt, should have filed a motion to 8uash said !arrants in the court that issued them. :)ut thisprocedural fla! not!ithstanding, !e ta'e cogni&ance of this petition in vie! of the seriousnessand urgenc# of the constitutional issues raised not to mention the pu%lic interest generated %#the search of the Fe Aorum offices, !hich !as televised in hannel 9 and !idel# pu%lici&ed inall metropolitan dailies. 0he e@istence of this special circumstance justifies this ourt to e@erciseits inherent po!er to suspend its rules. n the !ords of the revered r. Justice %ad 7antos inthe case of C. 8da. de Ordoveza v. )a%#undo, ;it is al!a#s in the po!er of the court C7upremeourtD to suspend its rules or to e@cept a particular case from its operation, !henever the

purposes of justice re8uire it....

Respondents li'e!ise urge dismissal of the petition on ground of laches. onsidera%le stress islaid on the fact that !hile said search !arrants !ere issued on Gecem%er 9, 15=2, the instantpetition impugning the same !as filed onl# on June 16, 15=3 or after the lapse of a period ofmore than si@ C6D months.

/aches is failure or negligence for an unreasona%le and une@plained length of time to do that!hich, %# e@ercising due diligence, could or should have %een done earlier. t is negligence oromission to assert a right !ithin a reasona%le time, !arranting a presumption that the part#entitled to assert it either has a%andoned it or declined to assert it. 5

Petitioners, in their onsolidated Repl#, e@plained the reason for the dela# in the filing of thepetition thus(

Respondents should not find fault, as the# no! do Cp. 1, ns!er, p. 3,anifestationD !ith the fact that the Petition !as filed on June 16, 15=3,more than half a #ear after the petitioners: premises had %een raided.

0he climate of the times has given petitioners no other choice. f the# had!aited this long to %ring their case to court, it !as %ecause the# tried at firstto e@haust other remedies. 0he events of the past eleven fill #ears hadtaught them that ever#thing in this countr#, from release of pu%lic funds torelease of detained persons from custod#, has %ecome a matter ofe@ecutive %enevolence or largesse


22/94

7everal and diverse reasons have %een advanced %# petitioners to nullif# the search !arrants in8uestion.

1. Petitioners fault respondent judge for his alleged failure to conduct an e@amination under oathor affirmation of the applicant and his !itnesses, as mandated %# the a%ove-8uotedconstitutional provision as !en as 7ec. , Rule 126 of the Rules of ourt .60his o%jection,ho!ever, ma# properl

crimpro cases 2

Documents