This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-06-05 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The law presumes that every possessor is a possessor in good faith.[30] He is entitled to be respected and protected in his possession[31] as if he were the true owner thereof until a competent court rules otherwise.[32] Before a final judgment, property cannot be seized unless by virtue of some provision of law.[33] The Rules of Court, under Rule 60, authorizes such seizure in cases of replevin. However, a person seeking a remedy in an action for replevin must follow the course laid down in the statute, since the remedy is penal in nature.[34] When no attempt is made to comply with the provisions of the law relating to seizure in this kind of action, the writ or order allowing the seizure is erroneous and may be set aside on motion[35] by the adverse party. Be it noted, however, that a motion to quash the writ of replevin goes to the technical regularity of procedure, and not to the merits of the case[36] in the principal action. | |||||
|
2006-05-04 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Clearly, probable cause existed for the issuance of the warrant as shown by the affidavits of the above affiants who had personal knowledge of facts indicating that an offense involving violation of intellectual property rights was being committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched. The surveillance conducted by SPO4 Nedita Balagbis on the basis of reliable information that Elidad, Violeta and Roger Kho were engaged in the illegal manufacture and sale of fake Chin Chun Su products enabled her to gain personal knowledge of the illegal activities of the Khos.[53] This fact was sufficient justification for the examining judge, in this case Judge Lanzanas, to conclude that there was probable cause for the issuance of the search warrant. | |||||