1987 Constitution: Search and Seizure (Article III)

The right of persons to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, houses, papers, and effects.

Probable cause personally determined by a judge after examination under oath or affirmation, with particular description of the place to be searched and things to be seized.

The warrant must sufficiently identify the place to be searched and the items to be seized to prevent an unrestricted exploratory search.

A warrant lacking the constitutionally required particularity and effectively authorizing a broad, discretionary search.

They permit indiscriminate searches and undermine judicial control over government intrusions.

A recognized exception permitting seizure of evidence whose incriminating character is immediately apparent when officers are lawfully positioned to observe and access it.

No. Officers must have a lawful basis for their presence and access.

A warrantless search permitted within legally recognized limits to protect officers and preserve evidence following a lawful arrest.

The search exception depends on a valid arrest and cannot ordinarily be used to justify an otherwise unlawful arrest.

A search conducted pursuant to valid, voluntary consent from a person legally capable of giving it.

Voluntariness, surrounding circumstances, the person's authority, and whether consent was obtained through coercion or intimidation.

No. Voluntary consent must be established from the circumstances.

An exception permitting certain warrantless vehicle searches when the legally required circumstances, including probable cause where applicable, are present.

No. The permissible scope depends on the facts and the applicable constitutional standard.

A limited protective search for weapons based on specific, articulable circumstances creating reasonable suspicion that a person may be armed and dangerous.

Stop-and-frisk is narrowly directed toward officer safety rather than a general search for evidence.

Evidence obtained in violation of the constitutional protections specified in Sections 2 or 3(1) is inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding.

A doctrine potentially excluding evidence derived from an unlawful search or seizure, subject to recognized limitations and exceptions.

A doctrine allowing evidence obtained through a genuinely independent lawful source despite a separate illegality.

It may affect whether subsequently obtained evidence is sufficiently connected to the original illegality to require exclusion.

The rights to remain silent, to competent and independent counsel preferably of one's choice, and related safeguards against coercion.

When law enforcement questioning concerns a person under custodial investigation as a suspect in a criminal offense.

No. The constitutional and statutory safeguards governing custodial confessions must be observed.

A confession obtained in violation of Article III, Section 12 is inadmissible under the Constitution.

To define and protect rights of persons arrested, detained, or under custodial investigation and prescribe duties and penalties relating to those rights.

Counsel helps ensure that the suspect understands and can effectively exercise constitutional rights.

No person shall be compelled to be a witness against himself or herself.

No. It principally protects against compelled testimonial self-incrimination, subject to applicable constitutional rules.

Testimonial evidence communicates knowledge or assertions; physical evidence may consist of bodily characteristics or objects obtained under lawful procedures.

The accused's right to assistance of competent counsel in defending against a criminal charge.

A.M. No. 06-11-5-SC, governing the use and evaluation of DNA evidence in covered proceedings.

Genetic information derived from biological material and analyzed for identification or comparison under accepted methods.

Contamination can introduce unrelated biological material and compromise interpretation of test results.

Collection integrity, chain of custody, laboratory methods, quality controls, interpretation, and statistical significance.

No. It may support identification or contact, but the prosecution must still prove all required elements.

DNA examination sought after conviction under conditions recognized by the Rule on DNA Evidence.

To require judicial examination of the legality of a person's restraint or detention.

A.M. No. 17-11-03-SC, establishing procedures for specified warrants involving computer data and cybercrime investigations.

A judicial authorization requiring disclosure of specified computer data under the conditions prescribed by the Rule on Cybercrime Warrants.

A judicial authorization permitting interception of specified computer data communications under the rule's requirements.

A warrant authorizing specified search, seizure, and examination of computer data or systems under the applicable judicial procedures.

Judicial authorization to examine computer data already lawfully obtained in circumstances covered by the Rule on Cybercrime Warrants.

A lawful seizure does not necessarily authorize unrestricted examination of all stored computer data.

To protect privacy and ensure that investigative actions remain within the judicial authorization.

It creates a forensic copy for examination while helping preserve the original evidence.

To establish provenance, reproducibility, integrity, and a reliable investigative record.

Unreasonable search and seizure, with possible exclusion of the documents.

The constitutional safeguards on custodial investigation and potential inadmissibility of the statement.

Whether examination of the computer data requires separate judicial authorization under applicable law and cybercrime warrant rules.

Whether the DNA evidence establishes involvement in the charged offense rather than merely earlier contact or presence.