Things that may be seized.

Rule 126, Section 3.

BUR!S "s. #$%&' !' ST(''
Note: The ruling in this digest is for the purpose of discussion regarding
Things that may be seized under Rule 126, Section of Rules of !ourt" The
#arrants #ere e$entually annulled by the S! on the ground that the said
#arrants #ere in the nature of general #arrants.
'acts)
Two search warrants were issued by Judge Ernani Cruz-Pano under
which the premises known as No. 19 !oad " Pro#ect $ %uezon City and &'(
)nits C * + !,- .ui/ding %uezon 01enue %uezon City business addresses
o2 the 3,etropo/itan ,ai/3 and 34e 5orum3 newspapers respecti1e/y were
searched and artic/es therein were seized.
The search warrants describe the artic/es sought to be seized in this
wise6
17 0// printing e8uipment parapherna/ia paper ink photo 9e8uipment
typewriters cabinets tab/es communications:recording e8uipment tape
recorders dictaphone and the /ike used and:or connected in the printing o2
the 34E 5;!),3 newspaper and any and a// documents communication
/etters and 2acsimi/e o2 prints re/ated to the 34E 5;!),3 newspaper.
<7 -ub1ersi1e documents pamph/ets /ea=ets books and other pub/ication
to promote the ob#ecti1es and piurposes o2 the sub1ersi1e organization
known as ,o1ement 2or 5ree Phi/ippines >ight-a-5ire ,o1ement and 0pri/ $
,o1ement? and
"7 ,otor 1ehic/es used in the distribution:circu/ation o2 the 34E 5;!),3 and
other sub1ersi1e materia/s and propaganda more particu/ar/y
17 Toyota-Coro//a co/ored ye//ow with P/ate No. N@0 '9<?
<7 +0T-)N pick-up co/ored white with P/ate No. N@A 9$9
"7 0 de/i1ery truck with P/ate No. N.- B<(?
(7 T;C;T0-T0,0!04 co/ored white with P/ate No. P.P $$B? and
B7 T;C;T0 Di->uE pick-up truck with P/ate No. NFA (<& with marking
3.agong -i/ang.3
;ne o2 the ground re/ied upon by Jose .urgos Jr. to annu/ the search
warrants is the 2act that a/though the warrants were directed to him a/one
artic/es be/onging to his co-petitioners Jose .urgos -r. .ayani -oriano and
the J. .urgos ,edia -er1ices Gnc. were seized.
%ssue)
*!+ the a,ticles seized -all unde, Sec 3 Rule 126 o- the Rules o-
#ou,t.
Ruling)
-ection " !u/e 1<$ o2 the !u/es o2 Court enumerates the persona/ properties
that may be seized under a search warrant to wit6
-ec. <. Persona/ Property to be seized. H 0 search warrant may be issued 2or
the search and seizure o2 the 2o//owing persona/ property6
Ia7 Property sub#ect o2 the oJense?
Ib7 Property sto/en or embezz/ed and other proceeds or 2ruits o2 the oJense?
and
Ic7 Property used or intended to be used as the means o2 committing an
oJense.
The abo1e ru/e does not re8uire that the property to be seized shou/d
be owned by the person against whom the search warrant is directed. Gt may
or may not be owned by him. Gn 2act under subsection Ib7 o2 the abo1e-
8uoted -ection < one o2 the properties that may be seized is sto/en property.
Necessari/y sto/en property must be owned by one other than the person in
whose possession it may be at the time o2 the search and seizure.
!.ne,shi/, the,e-o,e, is o- no conse0uence, and it is su1cient that
the /e,son against .hom the .a,,ant is di,ected has cont,ol o,
/ossession o- the /,o/e,ty sought to be seized, as /etitione, 2ose
Bu,gos, 2,. .as alleged to ha"e in ,elation to the a,ticles and
/,o/e,ty seized unde, the .a,,ants.
Neither is there merit in petitionersK assertion that rea/ properties were
seized under the disputed warrants. )nder 0rtic/e (1B o2 the Ci1i/ Code o2 the
Phi/ippines 3machinery receptac/es instruments or imp/ements intended by
the owner o2 the tenement 2or an industry or works which may be carried on
in a bui/ding or on a piece o2 /and and which tend direct/y to meet the needs
o2 the said industry or works3 are considered immo1ab/e property. Gn %a$ao
Sa#mill !o" $" !astillo where this /ega/ pro1ision was in1oked this Court ru/ed
that machinery which is mo1ab/e by nature becomes immobi/ized when
p/aced by the owner o2 the tenement property or p/ant but not so when
p/aced by a tenant usu2ructuary or any other person ha1ing on/y a
temporary right un/ess such person acted as the agent o2 the owner.
Gn the case at bar petitioners do not c/aim to be the owners o2 the /and
and:or bui/ding on which the machineries were p/aced. This being the case
the machineries in 8uestion whi/e in 2act bo/ted to the ground remain
mo1ab/e property susceptib/e to seizure under a search warrant.
#ali-o,nia "s. ,een.ood
'acts)
The po/ice a2ter recei1ing in2ormation that a certain Freenwood is
dea/ing with i//ega/ drugs and that se1era/ trucks make 2re8uent 1isits at the
/atterLs home searched FreenwoodLs trash /ocated at the curb thereby
Mnding traces o2 narcotics. .asing 2rom the narcotics 2ound in the trash the
po/ice then procured a search warrant to be en2orced at FreenwoodLs home
and e1entua//y they 2ound narcotics 9cocaine and hashishN inside the
premises which /ed to the arrest o2 Freenwood.
!espondent c/aims that the search and seizure conducted was in
1io/ation o2 the 5ourth 0mendmentLs guarantee against warrant/ess searches
and seizures.
%ssue)
4;N trash:re2use outside a personLs home is sub#ect to a warrant/ess search
and seizure.
Ruling)
&'(N%'(NT )*+
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
e,ects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be $iolated,
and no -arrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by .ath or
a/rmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized"
The 5ourth 0mendment does not prohibit the warrant/ess search and
seizure o2 garbage /e2t 2or co//ection outside the curti/age o2 a home.
The warrant/ess search and seizure o2 the garbage bags /e2t at the curb
outside the Freenwood house wou/d 1io/ate the 5ourth 0mendment on/y i2
respondents mani2ested a sub#ecti1e eEpectation o2 pri1acy in their garbage
that society accepts as ob#ecti1e/y reasonab/e.
-ince respondents 1o/untari/y /e2t their trash 2or co//ection in an area
particu/ar/y suited 2or pub/ic inspection their c/aimed eEpectation o2 pri1acy
in the incu/patory items they discarded was not ob#ecti1e/y reasonab/e. Gt is
common know/edge that p/astic garbage bags /e2t a/ong a pub/ic street are
readi/y accessib/e to anima/s chi/dren sca1engers snoops and other
members o2 the pub/ic. ,oreo1er respondents p/aced their re2use at the
curb 2or the eEpress purpose o2 con1eying it to a third party the trash
co//ector who might himse/2 ha1e sorted through it or permitted others such
as the po/ice to do so. The po/ice cannot reasonab/y be eEpected to a1ert
their eyes 2rom e1idence o2 crimina/ acti1ity that cou/d ha1e been obser1ed
by any member o2 the pub/ic.
*ashington ". Boland
'acts)
02ter recei1ing anonymous /etters 9accompanied by a brochure
containing the names o2 Dea/th 4est Products and .rad .o/andN a//eging that
de2endant .o/and is distributing /egend drugs the po/ice began a series o2
2our warrant/ess searches o2 de2endantLs garbage. Three o2 these warrant/ess
searches yie/ded e1idence.
02ter in8uiring with the 4ashington -tate .oard o2 Pharmacy in order
to 1eri2y de2endant did not ho/d a /icense to dispense /egend drugs the
in1estigating oOcer app/ied 2or a warrant to search de2endantKs home. The
warrant was issued based on the e1idence obtained 2rom de2endantKs trash
and the /etter and brochure recei1ed 2rom the in2ormant. The po/ice searched
de2endantKs house and seized a /arge 8uantity o2 /egend drugs as we// as a
card o2 tab/ets and a bott/e containing contro//ed substances. +e2endant was
charged with un/aw2u/ possession o2 /egend drugs.
+e2endant M/ed a motion to suppress the e1idence gathered during the
search o2 his house. +e2endant argued the e1idence was the 2ruit o2 the
warrant/ess search o2 his garbage which 1io/ated the 2ourth amendment to
the )nited -tates Constitution and Const. art. 1 P &.
%ssue)
4;N the remo1a/ o2 the garbage was an un/aw2u/ intrusion on the
pri1ate aJairs o2 the de2endant.
Ruling)
Const. art. 1 P & pro1ides6
No person sha// be disturbed in his pri1ate aJairs or his home in1aded
without authority o2 /aw.
Aio/ation o2 a right o2 pri1acy under this pro1ision turns on whether the
-tate has unreasonab/y intruded into a personKs 3pri1ate aJairs3.
The diJerence between the right o2 pri1acy under Const. art. 1 P & and the
5ourth 0mendment has been eEp/ained as 2o//ows6
Const. art. 1 P & ana/ysis encompasses those /egitimate pri1acy eEpectations
protected by the 5ourth 0mendment but is not conMned to the sub#ecti1e
pri1acy eEpectations o2 modern citizens who due to we// pub/icized ad1ances
in sur1ei//ance techno/ogy are /earning to eEpect diminished pri1acy in many
aspects o2 their /i1es. !ather it 2ocuses on those pri1acy interests which
citizens o2 this state ha1e he/d and shou/d be entit/ed to ho/d sa2e 2rom
go1ernmenta/ trespass absent a warrant.
4e Mnd under the 2acts o2 this case that de2endant .o/andKs pri1ate
aJairs were unreasonab/y intruded upon by /aw en2orcement oOcers when
they remo1ed the garbage 2rom his trash can and transported it to the po/ice
station in order to make it a1ai/ab/e to state and 2edera/ narcotics agents.
.o/andKs trash was in his can and sitting on the curb in eEpectation that it
wou/d be picked up by a /icensed garbage co//ector. This /eads us to the
conc/usion that it 2a//s s8uare/y within the contemp/ated meaning o2 a
3pri1ate aJair3. 4hi/e it may be true an eEpectation that chi/dren
sca1engers or snoops wi// not si2t through oneKs garbage is unreasonab/e
a1erage persons wou/d Mnd it reasonab/e to be/ie1e the garbage they p/ace
in their trash cans wi// be protected 2rom warrant/ess go1ernmenta/ intrusion.
Gn the words o2 the Dawaii -upreme Court6 Peop/e reasonab/y be/ie1e
that po/ice wi// not indiscriminate/y rummage through their trash bags to
disco1er their persona/ eJects. .usiness records bi//s correspondence
magazines taE records and other te//ta/e re2use can re1ea/ much about a
personKs acti1ities associations and be/ie2s.
Rules on 3+( &"idence.
4eo/le ". Umanito 526678
'acts)
Gt was around 96QQ oLc/ock in the e1ening o2 Ju/y 1B 19'9 whi/e on her
way to her grandmotherLs home when pri1ate comp/ainant I0007 was
accosted by a young ma/e. Gt was on/y /ater when she /earned the name o2
accused-appe//ant ),0NGT;. -he recounted that accused-appe//ant ),0NGT;
waited 2or her by the creek and then with a kni2e pointed at I0007Ls /e2t side
o2 the abdomen he 2orced her to gi1e in to his kisses to his ho/ding her
breasts and stomach and to his pu//ing her by the arm to be dragged to the
Dome Economics .ui/ding inside the premises o2 the +aramuangan
E/ementary -choo/ where accused-appe//ant ),0NGT; Mrst undressed her
I0007 and himse/2 with his right hand whi/e he sti// c/utched the kni2e
menacing/y on his /e2t hand. Pri1ate comp/ainant I0007 recounted that she
cou/d not shout because she was a2raid. -he 2urther recounted that accused-
appe//ant ),0NGT; /aid her down on a bench ( meters /ong and <( inches
wide set the kni2e down then mounted her inserting his penis into her
I000Ls7 1agina and short/y therea2ter accused-appe//ant ),0NGT; dressed
up and threatened I0007 whi/e poking the kni2e at her neck not to report the
incident to the po/ice or e/se he said he wou/d ki// her. 0ccused-appe//ant
),0NGT; then /e2t whi/e the 1ictim I0007 went on to her grandmotherLs
house and she noticed that it was a/ready around 16QQ oLc/ock in the morning
when she reached there.
Gt was on/y sometime in 199B that appe//ant was arrested. Gt took
p/ace when he went to the ,unicipa/ Da// o2 Nagui/ian to secure a po/ice
c/earance.
0ppe//ant contended that he was home the who/e day he/ping his
2ami/y comp/ete rush work on picture 2rames ordered 2rom .aguio. The tria/
court re#ected appe//antLs de2ense o2 a/ibi ru/ing that he did not pro1e that it
was physica//y impossib/e 2or him to be at the scene o2 the crime gi1en the
testimonies that he and comp/ainant were residing in the same barrio"
RT# rendered #udgment against him and sentenced him to suJer the pena/ty
o2 rec/usion perpetua and to indemni2y 000 in the sum o2 PBQ QQQ.QQ.
#( aOrmed.
%ssue)
4;N +N0 e1idence is admissib/e in court.
Ruling)
0mong the many incongruent assertions o2 the prosecution and the
de2ense the disharmony on a certain point stands out. 0ppe//ant on one
hand testiMed that a/though he had courted 000 they were not
sweethearts. There2ore this testimony /arge/y discounts the possibi/ity o2
consensua/ coitus between him and 000. ;n the other 000 made
contradictory a//egations at the pre/iminary in1estigation and on the witness
stand with respect to the nature o2 her re/ationship with appe//ant. 5irst she
c/aimed that she met appe//ant on/y on the day o2 the purported rape? /ater
she stated that they were actua//y 2riends? and sti// /ater she admitted that
they were c/ose.
4e are directing appe//ant 000 and 000Ls chi/d to submit themse/1es
to deoEyribonuc/eic acid 9+N0N testing under the aegis o2 the New !u/e on
+N0 E1idence which took eJect on 1B ;ctober <QQ& sub#ect to guide/ines
prescribed herein.
+N0 print or identiMcation techno/ogy is now recognized as a uni8ue/y
eJecti1e means to /ink a suspect to a crime or to abso/1e one erroneous/y
accused where bio/ogica/ e1idence is a1ai/ab/e. 5or purposes o2 crimina/
in1estigation +N0 identiMcation is a 2erti/e source o2 both incu/patory and
eEcu/patory e1idence. Gt can aid immense/y in determining a more accurate
account o2 the crime committed eOcient/y 2aci/itating the con1iction o2 the
gui/ty securing the ac8uitta/ o2 the innocent and ensuring the proper
administration o2 #ustice in e1ery case.
The ground work 2or acknow/edging the strong weight o2 +N0 testing
was Mrst /aid out in Ti#ing 1. Court o2 0ppea/sI<&7 where the Court said R
E E E Parentage wi// sti// be reso/1ed using con1entiona/ methods
un/ess we adopt the modern and scientiMc ways a1ai/ab/e. 5ortunate/y we
ha1e now the 2aci/ity and eEpertise in using +N0 test 2or identiMcation and
parentage testing. The )ni1ersity o2 the Phi/ippines Natura/ -cience
!esearch Gnstitute 9)P-N-!GN +N0 0na/ysis >aboratory has now the capabi/ity
to conduct +N0 typing using short tandem repeat 9-T!N ana/ysis. The
ana/ysis is based on the 2act that the +N0 o2 a chi/d:person has two 9<N
copies one copy 2rom the mother and the other 2rom the 2ather. The +N0
2rom the mother the a//eged 2ather and chi/d are ana/yzed to estab/ish
parentage. ;2 course being a no1e/ scientiMc techni8ue the use o2 +N0 test
as e1idence is sti// open to cha//enge. E1entua//y as the appropriate case
comes courts shou/d not hesitate to ru/e on the admissibi/ity o2 +N0
e1idence. 5or it was said that courts shou/d app/y the resu/ts o2 science
when competent/y obtained in aid o2 situations presented since to re#ect
said resu/t is to deny progress. Though it is not necessary in this case to
resort to +N0 testing in 2uture it wou/d be use2u/ to a// concerned in the
prompt reso/ution o2 parentage and identity issues.
Gn assessing the probati1e 1a/ue o2 +N0 e1idence the !TC sha//
consider among other things the 2o//owing data6 how the samp/es were
co//ected how they were hand/ed the possibi/ity o2 contamination o2 the
samp/es the procedure 2o//owed in ana/yzing the samp/es whether the
proper standards and procedures were 2o//owed in conducting the tests and
the 8ua/iMcation o2 the ana/yst who conducted the tests.
,oreo1er the court a 8uo must ensure that the proper chain o2
custody in the hand/ing o2 the samp/es submitted by the parties is
ade8uate/y borne in the records i.e.6 that the samp/es are co//ected by a
neutra/ third party? that the tested parties are appropriate/y identiMed at
their samp/e co//ection appointments? that the samp/es are protected with
tamper tape at the co//ection site? that a// persons in possession thereo2 at
each stage o2 testing thorough/y inspected the samp/es 2or tampering and
eEp/ained his ro/e in the custody o2 the samp/es and the acts he per2ormed in
re/ation thereto. The instant case is remanded to the !TC 2or reception o2
+N0 e1idence.