This case has been cited 7 times or more.
|
2014-01-13 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Furthermore, the Court also had occasion to rule that the particularity of the description of the place to be searched and the things to be seized is required "wherever and whenever it is feasible."[62] A search warrant need not describe the items to be seized in precise and minute detail.[63] The warrant is valid when it enables the police officers to readily identify the properties to be seized and leaves them with no discretion regarding the articles to be seized.[64] | |||||
|
2003-08-07 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| On the first issue, the failure to correctly state in the search and seizure warrant the first name of petitioner, which is "Bernard" and not "Romulo" or "Rumolo", does not invalidate the warrant because the additional description "alias Lolong Nala who is said to be residing at Purok 4, Poblacion, Kitaotao, Bukidnon" sufficiently enabled the police officers to locate and identify the petitioner. What is prohibited is a warrant against an unnamed party, and not one which, as in the instant case, contains a descriptio personae that will enable the officer to identify the accused without difficulty.[20] | |||||
|
2003-07-01 |
PUNO, J. |
||||
| We beg to disagree. There are only four requisites for a valid warrant, i.e,: (1) it must be issued upon "probable cause"; (2) probable cause must be determined personally by the judge; (3) such judge must examine under oath or affirmation the complainant and the witnesses he may produce; and (4) the warrant must particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.[8] As correctly argued by the Solicitor General, a mistake in the name of the person to be searched does not invalidate the warrant,[9] especially since in this case, the authorities had personal knowledge of the drug-related activities of the accused. In fact, a "John Doe" warrant satisfies the requirements so long as it contains a descriptio personae such as will enable the officer to identify the accused.[10] We have also held that a mistake in the identification of the owner of the place does not invalidate the warrant provided the place to be searched is properly described.[11] | |||||
|
2003-04-09 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| Likewise, the warrant failed to describe the place to be searched with sufficient particularity. The rule is that a description of a place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended.[17] The constitutional requirement is a description which particularly points to a definitely ascertainable place, so as to exclude all others. In the case at bar, only the application for search warrant[18] contained the address of the place to be searched. The search warrant issued by the court merely referred to appellant's residence as "premises", without specifying its address. The Constitution and the Rules of Court limit the place to be searched only to those described in the warrant.[19] The absence of a particular description in the search warrant renders the same void. | |||||
|
2003-01-20 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| A description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer serving the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended[59] and distinguish it from other places in the community.[60] A designation or description that points out the place to be searched to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry unerringly leads the peace officers to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement of definiteness. | |||||
|
2002-08-22 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| which was supposedly the subject of the search. The entire compound had an area of approximately ninety (90) square meters. The second unit was located at the back of the first unit and the third unit was at the rear end of the compound. Hence, access to the third unit from M. Hizon Street was only through the first two units and the common gate indicated as No. 120. The occupants of the premises stated that they commonly use No. 120 to designate their residence. In People v. Veloso, this Court declared that "even a description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended."[16] The description of the | |||||