3. Exclusionary Rule

To Whom Directed: The State

To come under the exclusionary rule, however, the evidence must be obtained by government agents and not by private individuals acting on their own.

This does not mean however that private individuals cannot be held liable. Almost all these liberties are also guaranteed by Article 32 of the Civil Code, making private violations actionable even if the violation does not have a constitutional consequence such as the applicability of the exclusionary rule. (Bernas, The 1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines, 2009)

General rule: The constitutional proscription against unreasonable search and seizure applies as a restraint against the government and its agencies. It can only be invoked against the State. If the search is made at the initiative of a private person for private purposes, without the intervention of police authorities, the right cannot be invoked because only the act of a private individual is involved and not of law enforcers. The protection of unreasonable search and seizure cannot be extended to acts committed by private individuals. (People v. Marti, G.R. No. 81561)

Nature

According to the exclusionary rule, once the primary source (the "tree") is shown to have been unlawfully obtained, any secondary or derivative evidence (the "fruit") derived from it is also inadmissible. Stated otherwise, illegally seized evidence is obtained as a direct result of the illegal act, whereas the "fruit of the poisonous tree" is the indirect result of the same illegal act. The "fruit of the poisonous tree" is at least once removed from the illegally seized evidence, but it is equally inadmissible. The rule is based on the principle that evidence illegally obtained by the State should not be used to gain other evidence because the originally illegally obtained evidence taints all evidence subsequently obtained. (People v. Samontañez, G.R. No. 134530, August 12, 2002 [date for owner verification])

Concept

Any evidence obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable searches and seizure shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. (PHIL. CONST., art. III, § 3[2])

Any evidence obtained in violation of the right against unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. This exclusionary rule instructs that evidence obtained and confiscated on the occasion of such unreasonable searches and seizures are deemed tainted and should be excluded for being the proverbial fruit of a poisonous tree. In other words, evidence obtained from unreasonable searches and seizures shall be inadmissible in evidence for any purpose in any proceeding. (People v. Comprado, G.R. No. 213225, April 4, 2018)