Dear PAO,
My father was arrested based on a search warrant, but the court refused to give us copies of the documents and evidence that were used to get the warrant to protect the identities of the confidential informants and police witnesses. Doesn’t my father have the right to see those documents so he can challenge whether the search warrant was valid or his constitutional rights were violated?
Jing
Dear Jing,
The right of the accused to be presumed innocent until proven guilty is a constitutionally protected right. Section 14, Article III of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides:
“Section 14. (1) No person shall be held to answer for a criminal offense without due process of law.
“(2) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be presumed innocent until the contrary is proved, and shall enjoy the right to be heard by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy, impartial and public trial, to meet the witnesses face-to-face, and to have compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses and the production of evidence in his behalf. However, after arraignment, trial may proceed notwithstanding the absence of the accused provided that he has been duly notified and his failure to appear is unjustifiable.”
In consonance to this is the equally important constitutional right of the accused against unreasonable searches and seizures. The issuance of a search warrant must be premised on a finding of probable cause which must 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. (Sec. 2, Art. III, Constitution). Probable cause refers to the existence of such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place to be searched.
These paramount fundamental rights of a person facing criminal prosecution cannot be negated by the need to protect the identities of confidential informants. As declared by the Supreme Court:
In any event, the State’s interest in protecting the identities of confidential informants cannot outweigh the constitutional rights of the accused. In People v. Otico, while this Court ruled for the prosecution despite the non-presentation of a confidential informant, it reiterated its concerns on the use of confidential informants in narcotics operations: xxx
Though considered essential by the police in enforcing vice legislation, the confidential informant system breeds abominable abuse. Frequently, a person who accepts payment from the police in the apprehension of drug peddlers and gamblers also accept payment from these persons who deceive the police. The informant himself may be a drug addict, pickpocket, pimp or other petty criminal. For whatever noble purpose it serves, the spectacle that the government is secretly mated with the underworld and uses underworld characters to help maintain law and order is not an inspiring one. Equally odious is the bitter reality of dealing with unscrupulous, corrupt and exploitative law enforcers. Like the informant, unscrupulous law enforcers’ motivations are legion — harassment, extortion, vengeance, blackmail or a desire to report an accomplishment to their superiors. Zafe III vs. People (GR 226993, 03 May 2021, Senior Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen).
Thus, the court’s refusal to furnish your father with the supporting documents of the search warrant issued against him is a violation of his constitutionally protected rights, specifically, due process and right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Your father should have been given the opportunity to examine the warrant’s supporting documents, which led to his subsequent arrest and criminal prosecution.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. This advice is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
Thank you for your continued trust and support.
Editor’s note: Dear PAO is a daily column of the Public Attorney’s Office. Questions for Chief Acosta may be sent to dearpao@manilatimes.net.
