Ruling No First the records show that the law enforcers had more than ample

Ruling no first the records show that the law

This preview shows page 4 - 6 out of 15 pages.

Ruling: No. First, the records show that the law enforcers had more than ample time to secure a search warrant. Second, that the marijuana plants were found in an unfenced lot does not remove appellant from the mantle of protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. In the instant case, there was no search warrant issued by a judge after personal determination of the existence of probable cause. From the declarations of the police officers themselves, it is clear that they had at least one day to obtain a warrant to search appellant's farm. Instead, they uprooted the plants and apprehended the accused on the excuse that the trip was a good six hours and inconvenient to them. The Constitution lays down the general rule that a search and seizure must be carried on the strength of a judicial warrant. Otherwise, the search and seizure is deemed "unreasonable." Evidence procured on the occasion of an unreasonable search and seizure is deemed tainted for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree and should be excluded. Such evidence shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. ZULUETA VS. CA, 253 SCRA 699 FACTS: Cecilia Zulueta took documents and photographs of her husband and his alleged paramours by means of forcibly opening the drawers and cabinet of his office. Cecilia Zulueta filed a case of legal separation and for disqualification from the practice of medicine against her husband, and used the documents that were obtained as evidence. RULING: The documents and papers are inadmissible in evidence. The constitutional injunction declaring “the privacy of communication and correspondence to be inviolable is no less applicable simply because it is the wife who thinks herself aggrieved by her husband’s infidelity, who is the party against whom the constitutional provision is to be enforced. The only exception to the prohibition in the Constitution is if there is a lawful order from a court or when public safety or order requires otherwise, as prescribed by law. Any violation of this provision renders the evidence obtained inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. The intimacies between husband and wife do not justify any one of them in breaking the drawers and cabinets of the other and in ransacking EVIDENCE MEOW NOTES 4
Image of page 4
them for any evidence of marital infidelity. A person, by contracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity or his right to privacy as an individual and the constitutional protection is ever available to him or to her. PP VS. ADOR, 432 SCRA 1 (2004) FACTS: In its effort to secure the conviction of the accused for the murder of Abe Cuya and Ompong Chavez, the prosecution presented a total of sixteen (16) witnesses. Mercy Beria testified that she ran straight to Chavez after she heard gunshots. She then found him catching his last breath. Beria asked Chavez what happened and replied saying “tinambangan kami na Ador”. About eight (8) meters from where Chavez was, in a dark spot, lay Abe Cuya, dead.
Image of page 5
Image of page 6

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture