A case in point is the Lacson exposé.The repeated airing by a particular TV station of that Lacson privilege speech complete with power point illustrations of the signature of one Jose Pidal purportedly belonging to the first gentleman somehow simulates a "trial" conducted before a public unlettered in the intricate rules for proper appreciation of evidence,who are called upon to render a verdict.The danger here is that any decision later on rendered by the court contrary to public opinion shaped by media,may no longer be accepted as correct.
Another case in point is the discovery of the rest of the paraphernalia, high powered firearms, ammunitions and other gadgets used in Oakwood at the Dasmarinas Village residence of ex-president Estrada’s deputy executive secretary Ramon Cardenas and in the Mandaluyong townhouse of his mistress Laarni Enriquez. Their lawyers had a field day in media denouncing the "planting" of those evidence. The denunciation even gained some public sympathy since it was made with pained cries of persecution and emotional appeals of how could they, of all people commit such a grievous crime .The lawyers vehemently decried the violation of their clients’ rights" to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever nature and purpose" as proscribed by Section 2, Article III of the Constitution which directs prior issuance of a search warrant.
But the Constitutional proscription against warrantless searches and seizures is not absolute.It admits of several exceptions. Foremost of these exceptions is in case of exigent and emergency circumstances; when the situation demands prompt action or attention (Caballes vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. 136292, January 15, 2002). The events of July 27 were undeniably dangerous as they were volatile and explosive.The security and safety of the state were actually threatened. The nation was placed on the brink of a very destructive and extremely bloody conflict. The government had to act fast inorder to neutralize and contain the uprising.It was truly and unquestonably an exceptional event where warrant is not necessary to effect a valid search and seizure.Especially because it was a Sunday when courts were closed.
True it is that to be reasonable, there must still be "probable cause" to conduct a warrantless search despite the uniqueness of the situation,the purpose of the search and seizure, the character of the articles seized and the place searched. Probable cause signifies a reasonable ground of suspicion supported by the existence of facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the items, articles or objects sought in connection with said offense is in the place to be searched (Caballes vs. CA supra).
In this case, the search and seizure were made right in Makati and Mandaluyong which were so proximate to Oakwood where the coup de etat was taking place. Coup de etat, which has practically the same elements as the crime of rebellion, may be considered also as a continuing crime (Umil vs. Ramos G.R. 81567, July 9,1990). So it is assumed that the commission of the offense is continuing especially at the height of the putsch on July 27.It was during that time when a tipped information was received by the government forces, including the NBI regarding the presence of uniformed men in those two places. In several cases, the Supreme Court has ruled that tipped information is a sufficient probable cause to effect a warrantless search and seizure (Pp.vs. Gonzales G.R.121877, Sept.12,2001;Valdez, 304 SCRA 140; Malmstedt, 198 SCRA 401; Tangliben 184 SCRA 220; Maspil 188 SCRA 751; and Bagista 214 SCRA 63).
At any rate, the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the warrantless searches and seizures made in the Cardenas residence and the Enriquez townhouse is an issue which their lawyers must prove in court, not in media. Like the Lacson exposé, this is purely a judicial question that cannot be authoritatively resolved in a public debate aired on TV, radio or newspaper. It about time the press should refrain from being used as tools for "winning" a court case through a popularity contest.