Cracking the Planted Evidence: A Legal Approach

By Jomz

Planting or tampering with Evidence is condemnable yet is committed by many public officers with evil motives. Many have become a victim and suffered injustice because of these fabricated lies that rip the confidence reposed by the people to the government.

Legal history and court cases have been infected and this has caused a legal challenge to many lawyers and law experts. However, the recent Supreme Court Decision in the case Miranda Clemente y Diaz vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 243159, dated February 13, 2023, has shed light of hope in order to prevent injustice that may fall upon an innocent person.

In this case, the accused was arrested on the grounds of violating section 844 of the Revised Ordinance of the City of Manila, which punishes the breach of peace. Incidental to that arrest, a body search was carried out and arresting officers discovered a transparent plastic sachet containing a white crystalline substance. She was then brought to the police station and charged with violation of Sec. 11 (3) of Art. II of RA 9165.

There was no planting of evidence alleged in this case, however, the Jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court, in this case, has a guiding light that may be useful to legal practitioners in resolving planted evidence cases. One of the core issues discussed by the court was the legality of arrest in relation to the “stop and frisk” search. The Court emphasized that “stop and frisk” is necessary for law enforcement and to prevent the commission of offenses. The court cited the case of Terry vs. Ohio, a decision of the United States Court, stating that:

“We merely hold today that where a police officer observes unusual conduct which leads him reasonably to conclude in light of his experience that criminal activity may be afoot and that the persons with whom he is dealing may be armed and presently dangerous, where in the course of investigating this behavior he identifies himself as a policeman and makes reasonable inquiries, and where nothing in the initial stages of the encounter serves to dispel his reasonable fear for his own or others' safety, he is entitled for the protection of himself and others in the area to conduct a carefully limited search of the outer clothing of such persons in an attempt to discover weapons which might be used to assault him. Such a search is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment”.



How exactly this case provides a clue? The main point to consider here is the manner of arrest and circumstances. In cases of planted evidence, usually, police officers are filled with evil intent and might just come up with any kind of crime that the arrested person might have committed. It might be challenging to prove the planting of evidence, but an innocent person can still be saved if the lawyer can find a loophole in the process of arrest and in the other circumstances during the arrest. Provided that the arrested person has really done nothing illegal then the chances to get acquitted have hope. 

(This post if just a personal note self-reminder of the author). 



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Effective Study Tips: A General Advice

I passed the November 2022 Philippines Bar Examination and here are some tips I wish to share: 1. Study when your mind is at peace and well-rested but not feeling lazy.  2. Find the right time that when you study you can easily absorb and understand ideas. 3. Focus well when you study, and avoid any distractions, however, do not force yourself to study if you already feel exhausted. 4. Find a hobby that you can do for a few minutes when you feel bored just to relax for a bit. 5. Mark the study materials you've already read or studied. This will indicate and will tell you that you are already progressing.
Read more

Campbell vs. Acuff-Rose Music Inc. (1994)

Fair Use: Application of Parody Doctrine in Philippines The US Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Campbell vs. Acuff-Rose Music Inc. (1994), pronounced that a work of parody is not a violation of any copyright. Applying the four tests for copyright infringement, such as the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and the substantiality of the portion used, and the effect of the use upon the potential market, the High Court ruled that the parody song “Pretty Woman” composed by 2 Live Crew did not violate the copyright granted to Acuff-Rose Music Inc. This new ruling significantly affected the application of the concept of “fair use” with regards to the utilization or copying of the copyrighted materials. It expounded further the principle laid down in the sec. 8 Art. 1 of the US constitution, which provides for the regulation by the State of the rights granted to authors and inventors, to promote transformative works for the furth...
Read more