EDITORIAL - Inadmissible evidence

You’ve seen enough movies about it: search warrants are valid only at the address specified in the application. This detail, however, escaped the attention of police officers investigating the death of Horacio “Atio” Castillo III, allegedly by hazing at the hands of Aegis Juris fraternity members in September 2017. The 22-year-old Castillo was a student at the University of Santo Tomas College of Law.

This week the Court of Appeals ordered the Manila Regional Trial Court to exclude most of the prosecution’s evidence against 10 Aegis Juris fraternity members. The order of the CA’s Eighth Division, penned by Associate Justice Perpetua Susana Atal-Paño, said the pieces of evidence were inadmissible because these were seized from an address that was different from what was indicated in the search warrant.

The order described as “fruits of the poisonous tree” the fingerprints lifted from the premises as well as DNA samples and 16 black metal batons taken from the Aegis Juris Law Resource Center, the fraternity’s library at 1458 Laon Laan corner Navarra street in Sampaloc, Manila. The Manila Police District had obtained a search warrant for 1247 Laon Laan corner Navarra.

At least the CA did not declare the search warrant completely invalid. It also deemed as admissible evidence three paddles, a guitar case and two pairs of socks seized from 1247 Laon Laan. But the CA’s exclusion of most of the other pieces of evidence has raised concern that it could prove fatal to the cases against the Aegis Juris members.

From the start, the fraternity members had argued that the pieces of evidence presented against them were inadmissible because the police failed to identify the exact address of the scene of the alleged crime. The CA, in its ruling, cited the need to uphold the constitutional guarantee against unreasonable searches and seizures, noting that search warrants “are derogations of a citizen’s natural and civil rights to privacy…”

Law enforcement agencies should remember this ruling and ensure that they give more attention to legal details in all crime investigations. Many cases have been tossed out by the courts on technicalities or lapses committed by investigators. These are not “mere technicalities” as they are often referred to by critics of such rulings. Conviction hinges on establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Defendants are expected to scour the accusations against them for any hole or legal technicality, from the conduct of searches and arrests to the handling of evidence, to secure an acquittal. Law enforcement agencies must ensure that their crime investigators are sufficiently trained in these details so that their efforts will lead to a guilty verdict. A crime is solved only when the offender is convicted and sent behind bars.