The law on searches and seizures (4-part series)

By Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes III

 

 (This is the beginning of the third part of the 4-part series of the article entitled: The law on searches and seizures).

 

The FOURTH CASE prominently highlights the validity of out-of-court identifications or police line-ups. If the victim or witness to a crime identifies the suspect through a police line-up, will such identification stand as evidence in court?

 

Here is the ruling of the SC on this matter:

 

“Police line-up, conduct of arrest and rights

of the accused in custodial investigations;

Totality of Circumstances Test

 

Appellant likewise questions the legality of his identification and arrest and the conduct of custodial investigation. He alleges that the procedure was irregular and that he was deprived of his constitutional right to have a counsel present.

 

The arguments do not hold water.

 

A police line-up is not indispensable for the proper and fair identification of offenders. The important consideration is for the victim to positively declare that the persons charged were the malefactors. In People v. Teehankee, Jr.,  this Court explained the procedure for out-of-court identification and the test to determine the admissibility of such identifications in this manner:

 

 

Out-of-court identification is conducted by the police in various ways. It is done thru show-ups where the suspect alone is brought face to face with the witness for identification. It is done thru mug shots where photographs are shown to the witness to identify the suspect. It is also done thru lineups where a witness identifies the suspect from a group of persons lined up for the purpose x xx. In resolving the admissibility of and relying on out-of-court identification of suspects, courts have adopted the totality of circumstances test where they consider the following factors, viz[.]: (1) the witness’ opportunity to view the criminal at the time of the crime; (2) the witness’ degree of attention at that time; (3) the accuracy of any prior description given by the witness; ( 4) the level of certainty demonstrated by the witness at the identification; (5) the length of time between the crime and the identification; and ( 6) the suggestiveness of the identification procedure.

 

Applying the totality of circumstances test, We find appellant’s out-of-court identification to be reliable and thus admissible. To recall, Adelriza after being awakened when a hard object hit her head and after she switched on the lights inside the room, had a clear and direct view of the attack on her husband and the perpetrator. Moreover, she described with certainty the assailant to the police cartographer barely hours from the time of the incident, which description matched the facial features of the appellant, whom she subsequently identified as the assailant. In other words, the interval between the time she witnessed the crime and her identification of the appellant, was merely a matter of hours, leaving no room for her recollection to be tainted. Verily, it was Adelriza’s own description that led to the apprehension of the appellant. There was no evidence on record indicating any hint of a suggestion from the police officer who presented the appellant to Adelriza. Hence, the identification of the appellant as the culprit of the crime stands.” (Emphasis supplied, citations omitted). (People of the Philippines Vs. Gerald Moreno y Tazon, G.R. No. 191759. March 2, 2020) 

 

Meanwhile, in this FIFTH CASE , the search is by virtue of a search warrant issued by the court. What became the subject of contention was whether or not it allowed the police team who implemented the search warrant to search all of the rooms in the building, to include those rooms occupied by families other than the one suspected of committing a crime. According to the SC, if the search warrant authorizes the search of one building or tenement, and the police officers in good faith do not know that the other rooms are being occupied by a different family, they will be deemed justified in extending the search to all the rooms. Thus, the SC explained:

 

“Search of multi-unit buildings; particularity or definiteness

Of description of place to be searched

 

“The requirements of a valid search warrant are laid down in Article III, Section 2, of the 1987 Constitution and in Rule 126, Section 9 of the Rules of Court, viz: (1) probable cause is present; (2) such probable cause must be determined by the judge; (3) the judge must examine, in writing and under oath or affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce; (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them; and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized. The absence of any of these requisites will cause the downright nullification of the search warrant.

 

X x x

 

Simply put, the test of whether the requirement of definiteness or particularity has been met is whether the description of the place to be searched under the warrant is sufficient and descriptive enough to prevent a search of other premises located within the surrounding area or comments. A “place” may refer to a simple building or structure, or house or residence, such as in the case at bar.

 

This Court finds that the omission of the warrant to (a) indicate that the place to be searched contained five rooms which were separately occupied by petitioner and her siblings; and (b) confine the search to petitioner’s unit is inconsequential, and therefore, does not affect the warrant’s validity for the following reasons:

 

            First, the units or rooms where petitioner and her siblings lived all form an integral part of the house, which, as already discussed, was sufficiently described with particularity under the warrant. The rooms inside the house, which were in fact occupied by family members of petitioner cannot be treated separately as they form part of the house where petitioner actually resided.

 

X x x

 

That the house of petitioner was composed of several units separately occupied by her siblings was discovered only after the search warrant was enforced and the search of petitioner’s house was conducted by the police officers. Notably, PO2 Avila could not have known or details the multi-unit character of petitioner’s house prior to the actual search.

 

(NOTE: In footnote no. 47 citing US v. Parmenter, the US SC held that: that a building subject of search warrant is divided into more than one occupancy unit, probable cause must exist for each unit to be searched, and the search warrant must describe the particular sub-unit or units to be searched.

 

Exception: When the officers who applied for and executed the warrant did not know or have reason to know the multi-unit character of the premises prior to the actual search . (Maryland v. Garrision [480 U.S. 79 (1987)]

 

Those items of evidence that emerge after the warrant is issued have no bearing on whether or not a warrant was validly issued. Just as a discovery of the contraband cannot validate a warrant invalid when issued, so is it equally clear that the discovery of facts demonstrating that a valid warrant was unnecessarily broad does not retroactively invalidate the warrant. The validity of the warrant must be assessed on the basis of the information that the officers disclosed, or had a duty to discover and disclose, to the issuing Magistrate. (Quoting Justice John Paul Stevens in Maryland v. Garrison)”. (Merlina R. Diaz v. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 213875. July 15, 2020).

 

Therefore, the rule is that if the police officers should have known that the building is a “multi-unit building” where the occupants are one-room-per-family, then they have to confine their search to the particular room which is being occupied by the erring family. Otherwise, even buildings housing apartments or condominium units which are clearly “multi-unit buildings” where each room/ unit is surely owned by a different family will be placed in grave peril of being searched for an offense committed or is being committed by other unit owners even if they do not even know each other much less are they complicit in one another’s acts. That would be a nightmare for condominium-unit owners who enjoy to the fullest extent their right to privacy and right against unreasonable searches and seizures in the same manner that each home enjoys the same rights.

 

(This is the end of part III. Watch out for part IV in subsequent issues of this newspaper. Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes, III is the senior partner of ET Reyes III & Associates- a law firm based in Iloilo City. He is a litigation attorney, a law professor and a law book author. His website is etriiilaw.com).