Ruling:No. First, the records show that the lawenforcers had more than ample time to secure a searchwarrant. Second, that the marijuana plants were foundin an unfenced lot does not remove appellant from themantle of protection against unreasonable searches andseizures. In the instant case, there was no search warrant issuedby a judge after personal determination of the existenceof probable cause. From the declarations of the policeofficers themselves, it is clear that they had at least oneday to obtain a warrant to search appellant's farm.Instead, they uprooted the plants and apprehended theaccused on the excuse that the trip was a good six hoursand inconvenient to them.The Constitution lays down the general rule that asearch and seizure must be carried on the strength of ajudicial warrant. Otherwise, the search and seizure isdeemed "unreasonable." Evidence procured on theoccasion of an unreasonable search and seizure isdeemed tainted for being the proverbial fruit of apoisonous tree and should be excluded. Such evidenceshall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in anyproceeding.ZULUETA VS. CA, 253 SCRA 699FACTS: Cecilia Zulueta took documents and photographsof her husband and his alleged paramours by means offorcibly opening the drawers and cabinet of his office.Cecilia Zulueta filed a case of legal separation and fordisqualification from the practice of medicine againsther husband, and used the documents that wereobtained as evidence.RULING: The documents and papers are inadmissible inevidence. The constitutional injunction declaring “theprivacy of communication and correspondence to beinviolable is no less applicable simply because it is thewife who thinks herself aggrieved by her husband’sinfidelity, who is the party against whom theconstitutional provision is to be enforced.The only exception to the prohibition in theConstitution is if there is a lawful order from a court orwhen public safety or order requires otherwise, asprescribed by law. Any violation of this provision rendersthe evidence obtained inadmissible for any purpose inany proceeding. The intimacies between husband andwife do not justify any one of them in breaking thedrawers and cabinets of the other and in ransackingEVIDENCE MEOW NOTES4
them for any evidence of marital infidelity. A person, bycontracting marriage, does not shed his/her integrity orhis right to privacy as an individual and theconstitutional protection is ever available to him or toher. PP VS. ADOR, 432 SCRA 1 (2004)FACTS:In its effort to secure the conviction of theaccused for the murder of Abe Cuya and OmpongChavez, the prosecution presented a total of sixteen (16)witnesses.Mercy Beria testified that she ran straight toChavez after she heard gunshots. She then found himcatching his last breath. Beria asked Chavez whathappened and replied saying “tinambangan kami naAdor”. About eight (8) meters from where Chavez was,in a dark spot, lay Abe Cuya, dead.