Right Against Unreasonable Searches and Seizures Part VI: Exclusionary Rule & Effects of Violations

After finally being done with warrantless searches and warrantless arrests, we’ll now find out what happens if officers fail to follow the correct procedure in conducting searches and seizures.

We already had a glimpse of the effects of an illegal arrest during our last discussion, but we’ll fully explore it in this post. But before that, let’s start with what happens after an unlawful search and seizure.

EXCLUSIONARY RULE & EFFECTS OF UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURE

I’ll just combine the first two topics here as they’re very much related. The exclusionary rule is embedded in the section right after Article III Section 2 of the Constitution (right against unreasonable searches and seizure):

It basically says that whatever evidence the officer obtains after an unlawful search and seizure cannot be used against the suspect. In other words, the suspect can go free if the officer is a moron. It may seem a little too absurd that a murderer may walk free simply because of a mistake, but that is the price to ensure that our peace officers do their best not to be moronic. Without this exclusionary rule, violating Art. III Sec. 2 will have no real consequences. This is where we always hear the phrase “fruit of the poisonous tree.”

Here is Justice Teehankee’s more formal explanation:
“This constitutional mandate expressly adopting the exclusionary rule has proved by historical experience to be the only practical means of enforcing the constitutional injunction against unreasonable searches and seizures by outlawing all evidence illegally seized and thereby removing the incentive on the part of state and police officers to disregard such basic rights. What the plain language of the Constitution mandates is beyond the power of the courts to change or modify.

All the articles thus seized fall under the exclusionary rule totally and unqualifiedly and cannot be used against any of the three petitioners, as held by the majority in the recent case of Galman vs. Pamaran (G.R. Nos. 71208-09, August 30, 1985)”
-Dissenting opinion of Justice Teehankee in Nolasco v. Paño, 1985

That seems clear enough. There are no loopholes in this rule. Now, the only questions that may arise out of the exclusionary rule are:
1. When can the suspect object to the admissibility of the evidence? During the trial, not during appeal.
2. What happens to the illegally seized items?
If not stolen or contraband, returned after the resolution of the case.
If stolen, contraband, or for public policy, it will not be returned.
If destroyed, the court is not mandated to grant affirmative relief.
In all accounts, the items may be used as evidence if a case is filed against the officer responsible for the illegal seizure.
3. Does the exclusionary rule cover witness accounts? No.
4. What happens to the erring officer? He may be held liable depending on the seriousness of his errors
5. Does the exclusionary rule apply to evidence obtained by private persons? No

First, the suspect must object to the admissibility of the illegally seized evidence during the trial. Let’s not confuse this with the rule on illegal arrest where it should be raised before arraignment:
“At any rate, objections to the legality of the search warrant and to the admissibility of the evidence obtained thereby were deemed waived when no objection to the legality of the search warrant was raised during the trial of the case nor to the admissibility of the evidence obtained through said warrant.“
–Demaisip v. CA, 1991

Second, the seized items will not be returned until the resolution of the case. Such is what happened in Roan v. Gonzales (1986):
“The pistol and bullets cannot, of course, be used as evidence against the petitioner in the criminal action against him for illegal possession of firearms. Pending resolution of that case, however, the said articles must remain in custodia legis.“

But of course, if the illegally seized item is patently illegal or not owned by the suspect, it can never be returned:
“Search and seizure of a man’s private papers to be used in evidence for the purpose of convicting him of a crime, recovering a penalty, or of forfeiting his property, is totally different from the search and seizure of stolen goods, dutiable articles on which the duties have not been paid, and the like, which rightfully belong to the custody of the law.“
-Boyd v. US, cited in Kheytin v. Villareal, 1920

For example, the court will not return illegally seized medicine if the suspect has no license to sell them:
“If the seized 52 boxes of drugs are pharmaceutically correct but not properly documented, they should be promptly disposed of in the manner provided by law in order to ensure that the same do not fall into the wrong hands who might use the drugs underground. Private respondent cannot rely on the statement of the trial court that the applicant “failed to allege in the application for search warrant that the subject drugs for which she was applying for search warrant were either fake, misbranded, adulterated, or unregistered” (Comment on Partial Motion for Reconsideration, p. 3; Rollo, p. 280; Order of RTC Dated December 7, 1995) in order to obtain the return of the drugs. The policy of the law enunciated in R.A. No. 8203 is to protect the consumers as well as the licensed businessmen. Foremost among these consumers is the government itself which procures medicines and distributes them to the local communities through direct assistance to the local health centers or through outreach and charity programs. Only with the proper government sanctions can medicines and drugs circulate the market. We cannot afford to take any risk, for the life and health of the citizenry are as precious as the existence of the State.“
–People v. Estrada, 2000

But then, if the illegally seized items were destroyed, the court is not obligated to grant relief to the suspect. Poor guy. The court didn’t even give a reason:
“WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the respondent court is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. It appearing, however, that the magazines subject of the search and seizure have been destroyed, the Court declines to grant affirmative relief. To that extent, the case is moot and academic.“
–Pita v. CA, 1989

According to Nachura’s book, “the property illegally seized may be used in evidence in the case filed against the officer responsible for the illegal seizure.”

The officer can be held liable administratively or criminally, depending on the circumstances. The basis for the officer’s administrative liability is in RA 4864, the law creating the NAPOLCOM, the agency that oversees the police:

Next, the exclusionary rule does not cover witness accounts. That would not make sense:
“Granting arguendo that appellants were illegally arrested, such arrest did not invest these eyewitness accounts with constitutional infirmity as “fruits of the poisonous tree.” Considering that their conviction could be secured on the strength of the testimonial evidence given in open court which are not inadmissible in evidence, the court finds no reason to further belabor the matter.“
–People v. Salazar, 1997

And lastly, the exclusionary rule does not apply to evidence obtained by a private citizen. If we recall People v. Marti (1991), the right against unreasonable searches and seizure can only be invoked against the government or an agent thereof and not against private persons. It follows that that the exclusionary rule finds no application in such a situation:
“The fourth amendment and the case law applying it do not require exclusion of evidence obtained through a search by a private citizen. Rather, the amendment only proscribes governmental action.”
– People v. Marti, 1991, citing Barnes v. US, 1967

That’s clear enough. I would recap everything here, but the recap is already the highlighted paragraph above.

EFFECTS OF ILLEGAL DETENTION

The effects of illegal detention are mostly suited for criminal law. In relation to constitutional law, this can be related to the effects of an illegal arrest.

The invalidity of an arrest leads to several consequences among which are:
(a) the failure to acquire jurisdiction over the person of an accused;
(b) criminal liability of law enforcers for illegal arrest; and
(c) any search incident to the arrest becomes invalid thus rendering the evidence acquired as constitutionally inadmissible.
–Veridiano v. People, 2017, penned by Leonen

I’ll just copy and paste the last part of our last post as I think it basically talks about the effects of illegal arrest/detention.

To illustrate, let’s say a suspect is arrested without a warrant while he was just sitting in his house. He did commit a crime, but it was done weeks ago. Clearly, the circumstances in this case does not allow any chance for a valid warrantless arrest. The correct procedure for the police would have been to acquire a warrant of arrest.

Anyway, now that he is arrested, he should question the validity of his arrest (usually through a writ of habeas corpus) before he enters his plea (during arraignment). If he does, then he must be released, and the arresting officers may be prosecuted for the crime of Arbitrary Detention under Article 124 of the Revised Penal Code, which penalizes any public officer or employee who, without legal grounds, detains a person. But, this does not mean that he is acquitted for his crime (that would be absurd). He can still be arrested and detained again, or at least denied the right to be released, if a judge issues a valid warrant of arrest later on (Such is what happened with Paco Larranaga as can be observed in Larranaga v. CA, 1998).

So what can a person gain from being illegally arrested? Probably the best he can gain is that any incriminating evidence that the police seized during the unlawful arrest will be deemed inadmissible even if he fails to object to his invalid arrest. This is the exclusionary rule that we will discuss in our next post.

But, if the suspect does not question the validity of his arrest before he enters his plea, he waives his right to object. The reasoning behind this is stated in People v. Briones (1991):
“Immediately after their arrest, appellants Briones and Javier could have objected to the legality thereof due to the failure of the police officer to secure first a warrant for their arrest. Not only that, without having questioned the legality of their arrest, they even pleaded, on arraignment, to the information filed against them. Appellants’ acts constitute a clear waiver of their right against unlawful restraint of liberty. Besides, it would be impractical, if not ridiculous to order the court a quo to set the appellants free then issue a warrant for their arrest, and try them all over again when appellants themselves have waived their right to object to such irregularity and when their conviction is truly based on overwhelming evidence.“

In connection with this rule is the following rule on bail:
Sec. 26. Bail not a bar to objections on illegal arrest, lack or irregular preliminary investigation. – An application for or admission to bail shall not bar the accused from challenging the validity of his arrest or the legality of the warrant issued therefor, or from assailing the regularity or questioning the absence of a preliminary investigation of the charge against him, provided that he raises them before entering his plea. The court shall resolve the matter as early as practicable but not later than the start of the trial of the case.

In other words, posting of a bail bond will not bar the suspect from questioning the validity of his arrest. But, the requirement still stands that the objection to the illegal arrest should be done before entering his plea. This rule is important now probably because there have been a lot of old cases before that held “posting of a bail bond constitutes waiver of any irregularity attending the arrest of a person, stop him from discussing the validity of his arrest.” Times have changed, I guess.

To Recap:

1. A person illegally arrested should object to his arrest before he enters his plea (arraignment).
2. Even if the arrest is illegal, the arrested person can still be detained, or re-arrested after release, if a valid warrant for his arrest is issued later on.
3. The person illegally arrested and detained can still post bail without waiving his right to object to the illegal arrest.
4. If the person fails to object to his unlawful arrest before arraignment, then he waives his right to object and it will be as if the arrest was legal in the first place (except for the part where the arresting officers will be punished and the evidence seized during the warrantless arrest will be inadmissible).

Whew. That’s it for rights against unreasonable searches and seizures (Art. III Sec. 2, 1987 Constitution). On to Section 3 in our next discussion!