Constitutional Law

10/23/ 2021

ARTICLE 3

Control agency or supervisor has control powers on you can replace your decisions. Subject to his or her approval.

Supervision – merely to oversee, said laws or organization which should be in accordance with the Constitution, sees to
it said laws must be followed, cannot replace the decisions. This is only supervisory powers.

Before NEA had control powers but now under RA 10531 supervisory powers na lang sya.

BENECO came up with an idea of an assistant gen manager, will eventually take place the general manager, before NEA
came up with a memo in selecting a general manager.

After NEA approving this rule of succession brought by BENECO, the former opened a vacancy for the position of general
manager.

NEA will be like a bar council, will assess if the applicant have the necessary qualifications required for the general
manager postion.

Under Labor Code, it is the employer who holds the power of control.

Sec 1 Art 1 Constitution

Sec 1 Art III

Due process clause.

If Congress created the office, then it also has the power to abolish or modifications is valid so long it is

ANG TIBAY case check this.

G.R. No. L-46496             February 27, 1940

ANG TIBAY vs.

ALDRIN JEFF P. CUDIA

G.R. No. L-45987             May 5, 1939

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. L-19550             June 19, 1967

HARRY S. STONEHILL

vs.
HON. JOSE W. DIOKNO SC RULING: No specific offense was alleged or indicated.

Must obtain the consent of the owner and not the consent of the kasamabay because the latter is not the agent of the
owner.

G.R. No. 199032               November 19, 2014

RETIRED SP04 BIENVENIDO LAUD

ponzi scheme case check this

G.R. No. 196045

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

Estafa and violation of SEC code are the cases filed.

Search warrant shall not issue unless there is a probable cause.

ADOLFO OLAES and LINDA M. CRUZ

VALID WARRANTLESS SEARCHES IN THE PHILIPPINES

People have the constitutional right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable
searches and seizures of whatever nature and for any 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” (Constitution, Article III, Section 2). There are, however, exceptions to the
requirement of a search warrant. The following are instances of valid warrantless searches:

1. WARRANTLESS SEARCH INCIDENTAL TO LAWFUL ARREST

This is recognized under Section 12, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, and by prevailing jurisprudence. In searches incident
to a lawful arrest, the arrest must precede the search; generally, the process cannot be reversed. Nevertheless, a search
substantially contemporaneous with an arrest can precede the arrest if the police have probable cause to make the
arrest at the outset of the search.

2. SEIZURE OF EVIDENCE IN “PLAIN VIEW”

Under the plain view doctrine, objects falling in the plain view of an officer who has a right to be in the position to have
that view are subject to seizure and may be presented as evidence. The plain view doctrine applies when the following
requisites concur:

(1) law enforcement officers in search of evidence have a prior justification for an intrusion or are in a position from
which they can view a particular area;

(2) the discovery of the evidence in plain view is inadvertent; and

(3) it is immediately apparent to the officers that the item they observed may be evidence of a crime, a contraband or is
otherwise subject to seizure.

3. SEARCH OF A MOVING VEHICLE

The rules governing search of a moving vehicle have over the years been steadily liberalized whenever a moving vehicle
is the object of the search on the basis of practicality. This is so considering that before a warrant can be obtained, the
place, things and persons to be searched must be described to the satisfaction of the issuing judge – a requirement that
borders on the impossible in the case of smuggling effected by the use of a moving vehicle that can transport
contraband from one place to another with impunity.Further, a warrantless search of a moving vehicle is justified on the
ground that it is not practicable to secure a warrant, because the vehicle can be quickly moved out of the locality or
jurisdiction in which the warrant is sought. The mere mobility of these vehicles, however, does not give the police
officers unlimited discretion to conduct indiscriminate searches without warrants if made within the interior of the
territory and in the absence of probable cause; still and all, the important thing is that there is probable cause to
conduct the warrantless search.

4. CONSENTED WARRANTLESS SEARCH

It is fundamental that to constitute a waiver, it must first appear that (1) the right exists; (2) the person involved had
knowledge, either actual or constructive, of the existence of this right; and (3) that person had an actual intention to
relinquish the right.

5. CUSTOMS SEARCH
It has been traditionally understood that persons exercising police authority under the customs law may effect search
and seizure without a search warrant in the enforcement of customs laws.

6. STOP AND FRISK

A “stop and frisk” situation, also known as the Terry search, refers to a case in which a police officer approaches a
person who is acting suspiciously for the purpose of investigating possible criminal behavior, in line with the general
interest of effective crime prevention and detection. A basic criterion is that the police officers, with their personal
knowledge, must observe the facts leading to the suspicion of an illicit act. The concept of “suspiciousness” must be
present in the situation in which the police officers find themselves in.

G.R. No. 113447 October 9, 1997

ALAIN MANALILI y DIZON

G.R. No. 119220 September 20, 1996

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 200334               July 30, 2014 was a question in 2018 BAR EXAM

THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

G.R. No. 83988 September 29, 1989

RICARDO C. VALMONTE
vs.
GEN. RENATO DE VILLA

7. EXIGENT AND EMERGENCY CIRCUMSTANCES

The doctrine of “exigent circumstance” was applied in People v. De Gracia which was decided during a time of general
chaos and disorder brought about by the coup d’etat attempts of certain rightist elements. Appellant was convicted of
illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of rebellion. He was arrested during a warrantless raid conducted by the
military operatives inside the Eurocar building, wherein they were able to find and confiscate high-powered bombs,
firearms, and other ammunition. According to the military, they were not able to secure a search warrant due to
ongoing disorder, with Camp Aguinaldo being “mopped up” by the rebel forces and the simultaneous firing within the
vicinity of the Eurocar building, aside from the fact that the courts were consequently closed.
Admittedly, the absence of a search warrant was not squarely put into issue. Nevertheless, the Court proceeded to delve
into the legality of the raid due to the gravity of the offense involved. The Court then analyzed the context, taking into
consideration the following facts: (1) the raid was precipitated by intelligence reports and surveillance on the ongoing
rebel activities in the building; (2) the presence of an unusual quantity of high-powered firearms and explosives in a
automobile sales office could not be justified; (3) there was an ongoing chaos at that time because of the simultaneous
and intense firing within the vicinity of the office and in the nearby Camp Aguinaldo which was under attack by rebel
forces; and (4) the courts in the surrounding areas were obviously closed and, for that matter, the building and houses
therein were deserted.

The Court ruled that the “case falls under one of the exceptions to the prohibition against a warrantless search. In the
first place, the military operatives, taking into account the facts obtaining in this case, had reasonable ground to believe
that a crime was being committed. There was consequently more than sufficient probable cause to warrant their action.
Furthermore, under the situation then prevailing, the raiding team had no opportunity to apply for and secure a search
warrant from the courts. The trial judge himself manifested that on December 5, 1989 when the raid was conducted, his
court was closed. Under such urgency and exigency of the moment, a search warrant could lawfully be dispensed with.”

[The enumeration is provided in People vs. Aruta, G.R. No. 120915, 3 April 1998. The discussion is a reproduction of the
dissenting opinion, Sereno, in Lagman vs. Medialdea, G.R. No. 231658/G.R. No. 231771/G.R. No. 231774, 4 July 2017]

STUDY REALLY THE TOPICS ABOUT IS THE SEARCH OR ARREST VALID?

G.R. No. 209387

ERWIN LIBO-ON DELA CRUZ

Expect reduce privacy on visiting ports due to their conduct of routine inspection.