REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA
Fourth Division

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Plaintiff-Appellee,

-versus-

CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06463

MARK VILLEGAS
AND MARTIN VILLEGAS
Accused-Appellant
x------------------------------------------------------x

MEMORANDUM OF AUTHORITIES
Appellant MARK VILLEGAS AND MARTIN, by counsel, to this Honorable
Court, respectfully submits this Memorandum of Authorities, to wit:

On the issue of the validity of the

search and the admissibility of
evidence against them.

Article III Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution provides for the right of the
people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against
unreasonable searches and seizures, pertinently provides:

Section 2. The right of the people to be secure in their

persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any

Brief for the Appellee

PEOPLE VS. VILLEGAS
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06463
X----------------------------------------X

purpose shall be inviolable, and no search warrant or warrant

of arrest shall issue except upon probable cause to be
determined personally by the judge after examination under
oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he
may produce, and particularly describing the place to be
searched and the persons or things to be seized.

Article III Section 3 Paragraph 2 likewise emphasize the right of every person in
the above given statute which states:

(2) Any evidence obtained in violation of this or the

preceding section shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any
proceeding.

For an evidence to be admissible the prosecution must prove

that

the

evidence

was

not

obtained

through

the

an

illegal

following

circumstances:
1. Evidence

uncovered

in

arrest,

unreasonable search or coercive interrogation, or

violation of a particular exclusionary law.
2. The poisonous tree is the evidence seized in an
illegal arrest, search or interrogation. The fruit of this
poisonous tree is evidence discovered because of
knowledge gained from the first illegal search, arrest,
or interrogation or violation of a law.
3. It is based on the principle that evidence illegally
obtained by the state should not be used to gain
other evidence because the original illegally obtained
evidence taints all those subsequently obtained.

Brief for the Appellee

PEOPLE VS. VILLEGAS
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06463
X----------------------------------------X

Furthermore, the law only requires search and seizure without a warrant
on the following situations:

1. Incidental to lawful arrest

2. Consented search (waiver of right)
3. Search of moving vehicles
4. Enforcement of customs laws
5. Checkpoints
6. RA requiring inspections or body checks in airports
7. When there are illegal articles open to the eye and
hand (plain view)
8. Stop-and-frisk situations
9. Emergency
10. Enforcement of health and sanitary laws

It is clear on the given provisions, that there is an exclusive list as to when

a search and seizure can be lawful despite of the absence of search warrant. A
warrantless search can only be proven or the evidence obtained without any
warrant can only be admissible if one of the listed circumstances exist during the
seizure.
Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court provides for the admissibility of
evidence,

Admissibility of evidence. Evidence is admissible when it is

relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law of these rules.

Brief for the Appellee

PEOPLE VS. VILLEGAS
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06463
X----------------------------------------X

Here, the prosecution cannot use the evidences that was taken from the
house of the accused because they were taken without any search warrant since
it was already in violation of the constitution which also resulted to it
inadmissibility necause it was excluded by the laws of the Rules of Court.

It does not bear anything even though there was a report the alleged
suspects on the crime of homicide committed to the victim was done by people
riding a pink motorcycle. That given fact does not constitute any right on the
authority to enter or to confront the caretaker to open the house as well as take
any evidence that he may have found in the house of the accused. The Report
that PO1 Ericson received and the fact that he saw the motorcycle in the
subdivision can be used to request for a search warrant but not allow the same to
enter the private property of the accused.

The violation of the right to privacy produces a humiliating effect which

cannot be rectified anymore. This is why there is no other justification for a
search, except a warrant. A search warrant to be valid requires strict compliance
with the Constitution. Section 2 Article III of the 1987 Constitution is the
constitutional basis of the rule on search and seizure.

All told, appellants charge of murder cannot be established using the

given evidence due to its inadmissibility. Their conviction for the offense charged
should necessarily be dismissed.

PRAYER
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that the appealed Decision be
REVERSED for lack of evidence in accordance with the prevailing law and
jurisprudence.
Makati City, October 24, 2014

Brief for the Appellee

PEOPLE VS. VILLEGAS
CA-G.R. CR-HC No. 06463
X----------------------------------------X

AIMEE BERNADETTE B. QUINONES

Public Attorneys Office
Counsel for Accused-Appellant
Roll of Attorney 1234
MCLE Compliance Certificate II; 1-24-14
IBP 21345; 1-24-14; City of Manila
PTR 123465; 1-25-14; City of Manila

Copy Furnished:

Atty. Reggie Landrito

Solicitor General
Suite 1234 Crown Tower
Tolentino Street, Sampaloc, Manila
Roll of Attorney 12345
MCLE Compliance Certificate II; 7-19-14
IBP 21345; 1-14-14; City of Manila
PTR 123465; 1-20-14; City of Manila

EXPLANATION

The foregoing BRIEF FOR THE APPELLEE is being served by registered

mail due to lack of manpower to effect personal service

AIMEE BERNADETTE B. QUINONES

Counsel for the Accused-Appellant