ARTICLE III SECTION 3

Section 3
Q. What is the scope of protection afforded by this section?
A. This section covers telephone calls and other general usages of
the terms communication and correspondence. It covers both
tangible, e.g., the ritten ord, and intangible things, e.g., rule of
!ec. ", i.e., illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding.
Q. #oes it cover iretaps or other methods of electronic
eavesdropping?
A. $es, %A &"'', the Anti(Wiretapping Act, prohibits any person, not
being authori)ed by all the parties to any private communication or
spo*en ord, to tap any ire or cable, or by using any other device
or arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept or record the same,
or to communicate the content thereof to any other person.
%A &"'' re+uires ,%-.I/0! ritten 1udicial authori)ation
to be issued upon compliance ith the constitutional re+uirements
for the issuance of a arrant, and shall be effective for only si2ty
days. 3evertheless, in 4aanan vs. IA5, it as held that a telephone
e2tension as not among the devices covered by %A &"'' and that
the use of an e2tension phone to listen in on a private conversation
as not prohibited as a tap.
Q. Is this prohibition absolute?
A. 3o, the state may infringe on privacy of communication by
applying for previous ritten 1udicial authori)ation in cases here
public +uestions are involved hich the !tate should and ought to
*no, e.g., national security. The !tate may also non(1udicially
intrude hen re+uired by publicsafety, public order or otherise
prescribed by la.
In order to 1ustify 1udicial authori)ation probable cause must be
shon. #oes this application also re+uire a particularity of
description?
In ritten correspondence there should be no
inconvenience in re+uiring such a particularity re+uirement but in
ire taps, particularity is necessary6 the persons being taped
identified7 the offense sought to be prevented and the
period of authori)ation.
!ection 8 of %A &"'' allos court(authori)ed taps under
specific conditions, e.g., for treason, espionage, provo*ing ar and
disloyalty in case of ar, piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion,
conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion,
sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to sedition,
*idnapping.
Q. What if there as no 1udicial authori)ation?
A. This should be based upon a non(1udicial government official9s
assessment:discretion that public safety and order demands such
intrusion. ;ut said discretion is limitable by la, and further, said
official must be able to point to a la under hich he acts.
<-=5-,TI/3> ?@.A under Art. "B' of the %,5, parents or guardians
can open letters of minors in their custody and that spouses can
open each others correspondence ?but in Culueta vs. 5A, they are
inadmissible as evidence because the court had upheld the sanctity
of one9s privacy even if the intruder be your spouse or ifeA
?".A the 0! !5 ruled that letters and sealed pac*ages in the mail
may be e2amined only as to their e2ternal appearance and eight
and may not be opened in accordance itht he constitutional
re+uirement of laful search and sei)ures, ?;0T ho about the
present practice of putting letters and pac*ages under an 2(ray
machine and e2amining their contents there.A
EXCLUSIONARY RULE?!-5 8A
SalcedoOrtanez v. CA
235 SCRA
,rivate respondent filed a complaint for annulment of marriage
against petitioner. Among the evidence offered by private
respondent ere 8 cassette tapes of alleged telephone
conversations beteen petitioner and unidentified persons. Doer
court admitted all of private respondent9s evidence. Eence, the
petition assailing propriety of court admitting in evidence the 8
tapes.
!EL"#
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 3
Absent a clear shoing that both parties in the telephone
conversations alloed the recording of the same, the inadmissibility
of the sub1ect tapes is mandatory under %A &"''.
$ULUETA % CA
253 SCRA &''
5ecilia Culueta ent to the clinic of her husband, forcibly opened the
draers and cabinets there, and too* @FG documents consisting of
private correspondence beteen #r. Hartin and his alleged
paramours, greeting cards, canceled chec*s, diaries. The
documents ere sei)ed for use as evidence in a case for legal
separation and for dis+ualification from the practice of medicine.
%T5 ordered that the documents be returned to the oner and that
5ecilia be en1oined from using or submitting as evidence the said
papers.
!EL"#
#ocuments sei)ed are inadmissible as evidence. The privacy of
communication and correspondence to be inviolable is no less
applicable simply because it is the ife ho is the party against
hom the constitutional provision is to be enforced. The only
e2ception to the prohibition is if there is a laful order from a court
or hen public safety or order re+uires otherise, as prescribed by
la. Any violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained
inadmissible for any purpose in a proceeding.
(eo)le v. *artin
'3 SCRA 5+
Appellant as*ed a forarder to ship four pac*ages abroad. ;efore
delivering them to the ;ureau of ,osts, the forarder inspected the
pac*ages and discovered that they contained mari1uana leaves. Ee
reported the matter to the 3;I and brought a sample for
e2amination. Agents of the 3;I ent to the office of the forarder,
The forarder too* out the mari1uana leaves and turned them over
to the agents of the 3;I. Appellant argued that the mari1uana leaves
should not have been admitted in evidence, as they had been
illegally sei)ed.
!EL"#
The evidence as discovered and obtained by a private person
acting in a private capacity ithout intervention of the authorities.
The constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and
sei)ures as intended to be a restraint upon the government and its
agents and not upon private individuals. !ince the mari1uana leaves
came into the possession of the government ithout its violation of
the right of the appellant against unreasonable searches and
sei)ures, they are admissible in evidence. The mere presence of
the agents of the 3;I did not convert the search effected by the
forarder into a arrantless search in violation of the 5onstitution.
RA*IRE$ %. CA
2,- SCRA 5'.
A civil case as filed by %amire) in the %T5 against 4arcia for
alleged ve2ation, insult and humiliation. In support of her claim, the
petitioner produced a verbatim transcript. 4arcia alleged that such
act of taping and transcription as illegal. Thus, she filed before the
%T5 a case for violation of %A &"''.
!EL"#
The act of taping a private conversation by one of the parties of the
conversation is punishable under %A &"''. The folloing reasons
ere given6 aA the legislative intent is shon as ma*ing no
distinction hether the party sought to be penali)ed is part of the
conversation or not.7 bA the nature of the conversation is immaterial
to a violation of the statute7 and cA the definition of communication is
a process by hich meanings or thoughts are shared beteen
individuals through a common system of symbols. !uch definition
is broad enough to include a private conversation.
(EO(LE % *EN"O$A
/.R. .'2+'0-.
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 3
/ctavio, 5ecilia I their daughter 5harmaine ere in a party at
Earrison ,la)a. When the party as over, 5ecilia I 5harmaine ent
home ithout /ctavio ho as nohere to be found. At home, they
found /ctavio, drun* and mad at 5ecilia for leaving him at the
party. Dater, having heard three gunshots, 5harmaine ran to the
ad1acent room and found her mother spraled on the floor, blood
oo)ing from her body hile her father as hiding something under
the bed. /ctavio called his brother(in(la and upon his arrival
brought 5ecilia to the hospital here she as pronounced dead on
arrival. #uring trial Alipio -usebio, father of 5ecilia, presented as
evidence the memorandum receipt and mission order of /ctavio for
a 8J(cal. revolver issued to him by a 5apt. of the ,AK.
!EL"#
!aid documents are admissible as evidence. The said right against
unreasonable search and sei)ures is directed at the government
and its agencies. It does not e2tend to private citi)en. In this case, it
as found that Alipio -usebio found and produced those documents
for the prosecution. Therefore, a search arrant is dispensable.
O(LE % TORRES
2'3 SCRA ,
,etitioner +uestions the validity of A/ 8'J ?Adoption of a 3ational
5omputeri)ed I# systemA on the ground of violation of right of
privacy. The A/ provides that the I# system is to be used for the
*ey basic services and social security benefits.
!EL"#
It is the burden of government to sho that A/ 8'J is 1ustified by the
some compelling state interest. The premises of A/ 8'J are not
compelling enough to arrant its issuance. The vagueness of A/
8'J hich, if implemented, ill put one people9s right to privacy in
clear and present danger. A./.8'J does not tell us in clear and
categorical term ho the information gathered shall be handled. A/
8'J falls short of assuring that personal information ill only be
processed for une+uivocally specified purposes. It may pave the
ay for fishing e2peditions by government authorities and evade
the right against unreasonable searches and sei)ures. %etrieval of
stored data is simple. /nce e2tracted, the information is pretty in the
hands of any person. The end of privacy begins.
(EO(LE % ARUTA
2-- SCRA &2&
Abello, /I5 of 3A%5/H, received a tip from an informant that a
certain Aling %osa ould be arriving from ;aguio the folloing day,
ith a large volume of mari1uana. The ne2t day Abello formed a
team and proceeded to deploy them near the ,3;. A bus arrived
and a female stepped off. The agents approached her and
introduced themselves as 3A%5/H agents. They as*ed about the
contents of her bag, and %osa handed it to them. Inside the bag the
agents found dried mari1uana leaves, and %osa Aruta as ta*en into
custody for investigation. The %T5 found her guilty and sentenced
her life imprisonment. #uring the trial the defense alleged the
illegality of the search and sei)ure of the items.
!EL"#
;oth the search and sei)ure, and arrest of Aruta ere not valid. The
general rule is that a search and sei)ure, to be reasonable, must be
made ith a arrant. There are hoever, several e2ceptions6 @.
arrantless search incidental to a laful arrest7 ". sei)ure of
evidence in plain vie7 8. search of a moving vehicle7 &. consented
arrantless search7 F. customs search7 L. stop I fris*7 G. e2igent
and emergency circumstances. 0nder all these cases, probable
cause must be present. In this case, the arrantless search and
sei)ure of the mari1uana leaves as illegal because the police
received the information about Aling %osa a day before they
arrested her. That as enough time to secure a search arrant.
probable cause as not even present because Aruta as not acting
suspiciously and hen 3A%5/H agents approached here, she as
1ust crossing the street. 3either can the search be legitimi)ed by
contending that it as incidental to a laful arrest. 0nder that
e2ception for an arrest ithout a arrant to be valid, the accused
must actually be committing, is attempting to commit, or had 1ust
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 3
committed a crime. To reiterate, Aruta not acting in any manner as
to suspect that she as committing a crime. Therefore, since the
arrest as illegal, the search as illegal as ell. It may be argued
that the by entering her plea and actively participating in the trial, the
accused Aruta as deemed to have aived ob1ections to the
illegality of the arrantless search and to the inadmissibility of the
evidence obtained thereby, the same may not apply to the case.
Aruta9s plea and active participation is only a aiver to ob1ecting the
illegality of her arrest.7 it did not cure the illegality of the search.
1AI%ER IR/!TS UN"ER SECTION 2 AN" 3
(EO(LE %. "A*ASO
22 SCRA 5,+
,olice officers arrested several persons for being members of the
3,A. While they ere conducting a surveillance of the house of the
sister of one of those ho had been arrested, a visitor told the police
officers that she as or*ing ith the accused. When they
proceeded to the house of the accused, alloed them to enter.
When the helper opened one of the rooms, they sa an unlicensed
firearm. The accused claimed that the sei)ure of the firearm as
illegal.
!EL"#
The right against unreasonable searches and sei)ures cannot be
aived by anyone e2cept the person hose rights are invaded by
one e2pressly authori)ed to do so in his behalf. The accused as
not in his house hen his alleged helper authori)ed the police
authorities to enter. There is no evidence that the accused had
authori)ed his helper to open his house in his absence. The search
of the delling place is illegal.
S(OUSES %EROY %. LAYA/UE
2. SCRA '+
,etitioners, ho ere residing in Que)on 5ity, permitted police
officers to search their house in #avao 5ity, because it as
reportedly being used as a hideout by rebel soldiers. The police
sei)ed a handgun and ammunition from the house. ,etitioners ere
then charged ith illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.
!EL"#
The arrantless search as illegal and the ob1ects sei)ed are
inadmissible in evidence, because the permission given to the
police as merely to ascertain the presence of soldiers in the house
and did not include an authority to conduct a room(to(room search
inside the house.
(EO(LE %. E%ARISTO
2& SCRA ,3
,olice officers came upon someone ho as firing a gun. As the
police officers ere chasing the person, they sa the accused ho
told them that the one ho fired the gun escaped through a indo
nearby, /ne of the police officers observed a bulge around the
aist of the accused. 0pon being fris*ed, the accused admitted it
as a revolver. As the accused had no license, he as arrested.
The co(accused, ho oned the house, permitted the police officers
to enter the house to loo* for the one ho fired the gun. They sa
several firearms inside the house. The accused and the co(accused
ere charged ith illegal possession of firearms. They claimed that
the sei)ure of the firearms as illegal.
!EL"#
The arrest of the accused ithout a arrant is valid, as he
committed an offense in the presence of the police officers. The
observation if the bulge on his aist, the earlier report of gunfire,
and the professional instincts of the arresting officers are more than
sufficient to 1ustify the arrest. The ta*ing of the firearm as
incidental to a laful arrest. The purpose of the officer in entering
the house of the co(accused as to apprehend the person ho had
fired the gun. The discovery of the firearms as inadvertent.
/b1ects hose possession are prohibited by la inadvertently found
in plain vie are sub1ect to sei)ure even ithout a arrant.
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 3
(ASTRANO % CA
2- SCRA 2-+
A group of students reported to 5aptain Hendo)a of the ,.5. in
/ro+uieta 5ity the beating of 5lyde ,astrano by his father ,eduto.
,eduto9s other sons sought the assistance of the same policeman in
connection ith the death of their brother 5lyde. They said that their
father as *eeping three unlicensed firearms in his house. 5apt.
Heno)a later applied for the search arrant ith Mudge #urias ho
later issued it. At ,eduto9s residence, the police as able to sei)e
to guns and various arms and ammunition. /n the basis of that
evidence, ,eduto ,astrano as charged ith illegal possession of
firearms.
!EL"#
#ocuments cannot ta*e the place of a license. It as also found that
the ,.5. had investigated hether a said license and ,T5 and H./.
ere issued to ,astrano, hoever, no information as found to
support the facts. The +uestion involving the validity of the search
arrant as debun*ed by the court. Although the arresting officer
5apt. Heno)a had no personal *noledge as to the commission of
the crime, the trial court actually e2amined the to brothers. Their
testimony formed the basis of the trial court9s finding of probable
cause.
SalcedoOrtanez v. CA
235 SCRA
,rivate respondent filed a complaint for annulment of marriage
against petitioner. Among the evidence offered by private
respondent ere 8 cassette tapes of alleged telephone
conversations beteen petitioner and unidentified persons. Doer
court admitted all of private respondent9s evidence. Eence, the
petition assailing propriety of court admitting in evidence the 8
tapes.
!EL"#
Absent a clear shoing that both parties in the telephone
conversations alloed the recording of the same, the inadmissibility
of the sub1ect tapes is mandatory under %A &"''.
$ULUETA % CA
253 SCRA &''
5ecilia Culueta ent to the clinic of her husband, forcibly opened the
draers and cabinets there, and too* @FG documents consisting of
private correspondence beteen #r. Hartin and his alleged
paramours, greeting cards, canceled chec*s, diaries. The
documents ere sei)ed for use as evidence in a case for legal
separation and for dis+ualification from the practice of medicine.
%T5 ordered that the documents be returned to the oner and that
5ecilia be en1oined from using or submitting as evidence the said
papers.
!EL"#
#ocuments sei)ed are inadmissible as evidence. The privacy of
communication and correspondence to be inviolable is no less
applicable simply because it is the ife ho is the party against
hom the constitutional provision is to be enforced. The only
e2ception to the prohibition is if there is a laful order from a court
or hen public safety or order re+uires otherise, as prescribed by
la. Any violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained
inadmissible for any purpose in a proceeding.
(eo)le v. *artin
'3 SCRA 5+
Appellant as*ed a forarder to ship four pac*ages abroad. ;efore
delivering them to the ;ureau of ,osts, the forarder inspected the
pac*ages and discovered that they contained mari1uana leaves. Ee
reported the matter to the 3;I and brought a sample for
e2amination. Agents of the 3;I ent to the office of the forarder,
The forarder too* out the mari1uana leaves and turned them over
to the agents of the 3;I. Appellant argued that the mari1uana leaves
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 3
should not have been admitted in evidence, as they had been
illegally sei)ed.
!EL"#
The evidence as discovered and obtained by a private person
acting in a private capacity ithout intervention of the authorities.
The constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and
sei)ures as intended to be a restraint upon the government and its
agents and not upon private individuals. !ince the mari1uana leaves
came into the possession of the government ithout its violation of
the right of the appellant against unreasonable searches and
sei)ures, they are admissible in evidence. The mere presence of
the agents of the 3;I did not convert the search effected by the
forarder into a arrantless search in violation of the 5onstitution.
RA*IRE$ %. CA
2,- SCRA 5'.
A civil case as filed by %amire) in the %T5 against 4arcia for
alleged ve2ation, insult and humiliation. In support of her claim, the
petitioner produced a verbatim transcript. 4arcia alleged that such
act of taping and transcription as illegal. Thus, she filed before the
%T5 a case for violation of %A &"''.
!EL"#
The act of taping a private conversation by one of the parties of the
conversation is punishable under %A &"''. The folloing reasons
ere given6 aA the legislative intent is shon as ma*ing no
distinction hether the party sought to be penali)ed is part of the
conversation or not.7 bA the nature of the conversation is immaterial
to a violation of the statute7 and cA the definition of communication is
a process by hich meanings or thoughts are shared beteen
individuals through a common system of symbols. !uch definition
is broad enough to include a private conversation.
(EO(LE % *EN"O$A
/.R. .'2+'0-.
/ctavio, 5ecilia I their daughter 5harmaine ere in a party at
Earrison ,la)a. When the party as over, 5ecilia I 5harmaine ent
home ithout /ctavio ho as nohere to be found. At home, they
found /ctavio, drun* and mad at 5ecilia for leaving him at the
party. Dater, having heard three gunshots, 5harmaine ran to the
ad1acent room and found her mother spraled on the floor, blood
oo)ing from her body hile her father as hiding something under
the bed. /ctavio called his brother(in(la and upon his arrival
brought 5ecilia to the hospital here she as pronounced dead on
arrival. #uring trial Alipio -usebio, father of 5ecilia, presented as
evidence the memorandum receipt and mission order of /ctavio for
a 8J(cal. revolver issued to him by a 5apt. of the ,AK.
!EL"#
!aid documents are admissible as evidence. The said right against
unreasonable search and sei)ures is directed at the government
and its agencies. It does not e2tend to private citi)en. In this case, it
as found that Alipio -usebio found and produced those documents
for the prosecution. Therefore, a search arrant is dispensable.
O(LE % TORRES
2'3 SCRA ,
,etitioner +uestions the validity of A/ 8'J ?Adoption of a 3ational
5omputeri)ed I# systemA on the ground of violation of right of
privacy. The A/ provides that the I# system is to be used for the
*ey basic services and social security benefits.
!EL"#
It is the burden of government to sho that A/ 8'J is 1ustified by the
some compelling state interest. The premises of A/ 8'J are not
compelling enough to arrant its issuance. The vagueness of A/
8'J hich, if implemented, ill put one people9s right to privacy in
clear and present danger. A./.8'J does not tell us in clear and
categorical term ho the information gathered shall be handled. A/
8'J falls short of assuring that personal information ill only be
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 3
processed for une+uivocally specified purposes. It may pave the
ay for fishing e2peditions by government authorities and evade
the right against unreasonable searches and sei)ures. %etrieval of
stored data is simple. /nce e2tracted, the information is pretty in the
hands of any person. The end of privacy begins.
(EO(LE % ARUTA
2-- SCRA &2&
Abello, /I5 of 3A%5/H, received a tip from an informant that a
certain Aling %osa ould be arriving from ;aguio the folloing day,
ith a large volume of mari1uana. The ne2t day Abello formed a
team and proceeded to deploy them near the ,3;. A bus arrived
and a female stepped off. The agents approached her and
introduced themselves as 3A%5/H agents. They as*ed about the
contents of her bag, and %osa handed it to them. Inside the bag the
agents found dried mari1uana leaves, and %osa Aruta as ta*en into
custody for investigation. The %T5 found her guilty and sentenced
her life imprisonment. #uring the trial the defense alleged the
illegality of the search and sei)ure of the items.
!EL"#
;oth the search and sei)ure, and arrest of Aruta ere not valid. The
general rule is that a search and sei)ure, to be reasonable, must be
made ith a arrant. There are hoever, several e2ceptions6 @.
arrantless search incidental to a laful arrest7 ". sei)ure of
evidence in plain vie7 8. search of a moving vehicle7 &. consented
arrantless search7 F. customs search7 L. stop I fris*7 G. e2igent
and emergency circumstances. 0nder all these cases, probable
cause must be present. In this case, the arrantless search and
sei)ure of the mari1uana leaves as illegal because the police
received the information about Aling %osa a day before they
arrested her. That as enough time to secure a search arrant.
probable cause as not even present because Aruta as not acting
suspiciously and hen 3A%5/H agents approached here, she as
1ust crossing the street. 3either can the search be legitimi)ed by
contending that it as incidental to a laful arrest. 0nder that
e2ception for an arrest ithout a arrant to be valid, the accused
must actually be committing, is attempting to commit, or had 1ust
committed a crime. To reiterate, Aruta not acting in any manner as
to suspect that she as committing a crime. Therefore, since the
arrest as illegal, the search as illegal as ell. It may be argued
that the by entering her plea and actively participating in the trial, the
accused Aruta as deemed to have aived ob1ections to the
illegality of the arrantless search and to the inadmissibility of the
evidence obtained thereby, the same may not apply to the case.
Aruta9s plea and active participation is only a aiver to ob1ecting the
illegality of her arrest.7 it did not cure the illegality of the search.
1AI%ER RI/!TS UN"ER SECTION 2 AN" 3
(EO(LE %. "A*ASO
22 SCRA 5,+
,olice officers arrested several persons for being members of the
3,A. While they ere conducting a surveillance of the house of the
sister of one of those ho had been arrested, a visitor told the police
officers that she as or*ing ith the accused. When they
proceeded to the house of the accused, alloed them to enter.
When the helper opened one of the rooms, they sa an unlicensed
firearm. The accused claimed that the sei)ure of the firearm as
illegal.
!EL"#
The right against unreasonable searches and sei)ures cannot be
aived by anyone e2cept the person hose rights are invaded by
one e2pressly authori)ed to do so in his behalf. The accused as
not in his house hen his alleged helper authori)ed the police
authorities to enter. There is no evidence that the accused had
authori)ed his helper to open his house in his absence. The search
of the delling place is illegal.
S(OUSES %EROY %. LAYA/UE
2. SCRA '+
,etitioners, ho ere residing in Que)on 5ity, permitted police
officers to search their house in #avao 5ity, because it as
reportedly being used as a hideout by rebel soldiers. The police
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER
ARTICLE III SECTION 3
sei)ed a handgun and ammunition from the house. ,etitioners ere
then charged ith illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.
!EL"#
The arrantless search as illegal and the ob1ects sei)ed are
inadmissible in evidence, because the permission given to the
police as merely to ascertain the presence of soldiers in the house
and did not include an authority to conduct a room(to(room search
inside the house.
(EO(LE %. E%ARISTO
2& SCRA ,3
,olice officers came upon someone ho as firing a gun. As the
police officers ere chasing the person, they sa the accused ho
told them that the one ho fired the gun escaped through a indo
nearby, /ne of the police officers observed a bulge around the
aist of the accused. 0pon being fris*ed, the accused admitted it
as a revolver. As the accused had no license, he as arrested.
The co(accused, ho oned the house, permitted the police officers
to enter the house to loo* for the one ho fired the gun. They sa
several firearms inside the house. The accused and the co(accused
ere charged ith illegal possession of firearms. They claimed that
the sei)ure of the firearms as illegal.
!EL"#
The arrest of the accused ithout a arrant is valid, as he
committed an offense in the presence of the police officers. The
observation if the bulge on his aist, the earlier report of gunfire,
and the professional instincts of the arresting officers are more than
sufficient to 1ustify the arrest. The ta*ing of the firearm as
incidental to a laful arrest. The purpose of the officer in entering
the house of the co(accused as to apprehend the person ho had
fired the gun. The discovery of the firearms as inadvertent.
/b1ects hose possession are prohibited by la inadvertently found
in plain vie are sub1ect to sei)ure even ithout a arrant.
(ASTRANO % CA
2- SCRA 2-+
A group of students reported to 5aptain Hendo)a of the ,.5. in
/ro+uieta 5ity the beating of 5lyde ,astrano by his father ,eduto.
,eduto9s other sons sought the assistance of the same policeman in
connection ith the death of their brother 5lyde. They said that their
father as *eeping three unlicensed firearms in his house. 5apt.
Heno)a later applied for the search arrant ith Mudge #urias ho
later issued it. At ,eduto9s residence, the police as able to sei)e
to guns and various arms and ammunition. /n the basis of that
evidence, ,eduto ,astrano as charged ith illegal possession of
firearms.
!EL"#
#ocuments cannot ta*e the place of a license. It as also found that
the ,.5. had investigated hether a said license and ,T5 and H./.
ere issued to ,astrano, hoever, no information as found to
support the facts. The +uestion involving the validity of the search
arrant as debun*ed by the court. Although the arresting officer
5apt. Heno)a had no personal *noledge as to the commission of
the crime, the trial court actually e2amined the to brothers. Their
testimony formed the basis of the trial court9s finding of probable
cause.
CLASS I-C CONSTITUTIONAL LAW 2 REVIEWER