This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2014-11-19 |
PER CURIAM |
||||
| "[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 and distinguish it from other places in the community. Any designation or description known to the locality that points out the place to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry leads the officers unerringly to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement."[51] | |||||
|
2007-11-23 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Well-settled is the rule that the legality of a seizure can be contested only by the party whose rights have been impaired thereby, and the objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by third parties.[18] | |||||
|
2007-06-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| The long standing rule is that 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 and distinguish it from other places in the community. Any designation or description known to the locality that points out the place to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry leads the officers unerringly to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement.[41] | |||||
|
2006-08-03 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| The searching questions propounded to the applicant and the witnesses depend largely on the discretion of the judge. Although there is no hard-and-fast rule governing how a judge should conduct his examination, it is axiomatic that the examination must be probing and exhaustive, not merely routinary, general, peripheral, perfunctory or pro-forma.[24] The judge must not simply rehash the contents of the affidavit but must make his own inquiry on the intent and justification of the application.[25] The questions should not merely be repetitious of the averments stated in the affidavits or depositions of the applicant and the witnesses.[26] If the judge fails to determine probable cause by personally examining the applicant and his witnesses in the form of searching questions before issuing a search warrant, grave abuse of discretion is committed.[27] | |||||
|
2004-09-13 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Still, no provision of law exists which requires that a warrant, partially defective in specifying some items sought to be seized yet particular with respect to the other items, should be nullified as a whole. A partially defective warrant remains valid as to the items specifically described in the warrant.[44] A search warrant is severable, the items not sufficiently described may be cut off without destroying the whole warrant.[45] The exclusionary rule found in Section 3(2) of Article III of the Constitution renders inadmissible in any proceeding all evidence obtained through unreasonable searches and seizure. Thus, all items seized under paragraph (c) of the search warrants, not falling under paragraphs a, b, d, e or f, should be returned to Maxicorp. | |||||
|
2002-09-27 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| substantial compliance with Section 3, Rule 46.[23] On the second issue, petitioner argues that he was denied due process[24] when he was dropped from the rolls. He avers that he received PCMC's letter dated March 5, 1998 only on March 20, 1998 and thus, had until March 23, 1998 within which to comply | |||||