Inadmissibility of illegally-obtained evidence

The forces of the American and Philippine criminal law jurisprudence both postulate that illegally-obtained evidence is not admissible in a criminal court.

- Atty. Josephus B. Jimenez

The forces of the American and Philippine criminal law jurisprudence both postulate that illegally-obtained evidence is not admissible in a criminal court. This is obviously intended to protect the accused from the abuses of the police and other law-enforcement authorities. But then again, this doctrine called the "Fruit of the Poisonous Tree" may not be applicable to impeachment proceedings.

Senior Associate Justice Mario Victor Leonen who wrote the Supreme Court decision in the case of Joseph Villasana y Cabahug v. People of the Philippines, GR 209078, promulgated on September 4, 2019 opened his decision by declaring as follows: "Evidence seized as a result of an illegal warrantless arrest cannot be used against an accused pursuant to Article III, Section 3(2) of the Constitution."

Justice Leonen further explained: Even if the seizure was reasonable, the arresting officers’ unjustified noncompliance with the legal safeguards under Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165 compromises the integrity of the confiscated drug. This creates reasonable doubt on the conviction of the accused for illegal possession of dangerous drugs." Again, this is not applicable to the impeachment case of the vice president.