Lawyerly

GR No. 189669

2015-02-16

PILIPINAS SHELL v. ROMARS INTERNATIONAL GASES

PERALTA, J.

The omnibus motion rule embodied in Section 8, Rule 15, in relation to Section 1, Rule 9, demands that all available objections be included in a party's motion, otherwise, said objections shall be deemed waived; and, the only grounds the court could take cognizance of, even if not pleaded in said motion are: (a) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; (b) existence of another action pending between the same parties for the same cause; and (c) bar by prior judgment or by statute of limitations.[9] It should be stressed here that the Court has ruled in a number of cases that the omnibus motion rule is applicable to motions to quash search warrants.[10] Furthermore, the Court distinctly stated in Abuan v. People,[11] that "the motion to quash the search warrant which the accused may file shall be governed by the omnibus motion rule, provided, however, that objections not available, existent or known during the proceedings for the quashal of the warrant may be raised in the hearing of the motion to suppress x x x."[12]

GR No. 179408

2014-03-05

PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEP COMPANY v. ABIGAIL R. RAZON ALVAREZ

BRION, J.

The constitutional requirement for the issuance of a search warrant is reiterated under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. These sections lay down the following requirements for the issuance of a search warrant: (1) the existence of probable cause; (2) the probable cause must be determined personally by the judge; (3) the judge must examine, in writing and under oath or affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce; (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them; and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized.[44] Should any of these requisites be absent, the party aggrieved by the issuance and enforcement of the search warrant may file a motion to quash the search warrant with the issuing court or with the court where the action is subsequently instituted.[45]

GR No. 198452

2014-02-19

PEOPLE v. VICENTE ROM

PEREZ, J.

Definitely, the records do not show that the appellant has the legal authority to possess the four heat-sealed plastic packets of shabu. Settled is the rule that possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such possession. As such, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi,[47] which the appellant in this case miserably failed to do.

GR No. 161106

2014-01-13

WORLDWIDE WEB CORPORATION v. PEOPLE

SERENO, C.J.

A trial judge's finding of probable cause may be set aside and the search warrant issued by him based on his finding may be quashed if the person against whom the warrant is issued presents clear and convincing evidence that when the police officers and witnesses testified, they committed a deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth on matters that are essential or necessary to a showing of probable cause.[52] In that case, the finding of probable cause is a nullity, because the trial judge was intentionally misled by the witnesses.[53]

GR No. 185128

2012-01-30

RUBEN DEL CASTILLO v. PEOPLE

PERALTA, J.

The requisites for the issuance of a search warrant are: (1) probable cause is present; (2) such probable cause must be determined personally by the judge; (3) the judge must examine, in writing and under oath or affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce; (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them; and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized.[12] According to petitioner, there was no probable cause. Probable cause for a search warrant is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.[13] A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was committed by the accused. Probable cause demands more than bare suspicion; it requires less than evidence which would justify conviction.[14] The judge, in determining probable cause, is to consider the totality of the circumstances made known to him and not by a fixed and rigid formula,[15] and must employ a flexible, totality of the circumstances standard.[16] The existence depends to a large degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge conducting the examination. This Court, therefore, is in no position to disturb the factual findings of the judge which led to the issuance of the search warrant. A magistrate's determination of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant is paid great deference by a reviewing court, as long as there was substantial basis for that determination.[17] Substantial basis means that the questions of the examining judge brought out such facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and the objects in connection with the offense sought to be seized are in the place sought to be searched.[18] A review of the records shows that in the present case, a substantial basis exists.

GR No. 185128

2012-01-30

RUBEN DEL CASTILLO v. PEOPLE

PERALTA, J.

The requisites for the issuance of a search warrant are: (1) probable cause is present; (2) such probable cause must be determined personally by the judge; (3) the judge must examine, in writing and under oath or affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce; (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them; and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized.[12] According to petitioner, there was no probable cause. Probable cause for a search warrant is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.[13] A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was committed by the accused. Probable cause demands more than bare suspicion; it requires less than evidence which would justify conviction.[14] The judge, in determining probable cause, is to consider the totality of the circumstances made known to him and not by a fixed and rigid formula,[15] and must employ a flexible, totality of the circumstances standard.[16] The existence depends to a large degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge conducting the examination. This Court, therefore, is in no position to disturb the factual findings of the judge which led to the issuance of the search warrant. A magistrate's determination of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant is paid great deference by a reviewing court, as long as there was substantial basis for that determination.[17] Substantial basis means that the questions of the examining judge brought out such facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and the objects in connection with the offense sought to be seized are in the place sought to be searched.[18] A review of the records shows that in the present case, a substantial basis exists.

GR No. 171980

2010-10-06

PEOPLE v. OLIVE RUBIO MAMARIL

PEREZ, J.

The requisites for the issuance of a search warrant are: (1) probable cause is present; (2) such probable cause must be determined personally by the judge; (3) the judge must examine, in writing and under oath or affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce; (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them; and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized.[38]

GR No. 177768

2009-07-27

PEOPLE v. CHARMEN OLIVO Y ALONG

QUISUMBING, J.

The well-entrenched rule is that findings of the trial court affirmed by the appellate court are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, by this Court, absent clear and convincing evidence that the tribunals ignored, misconstrued or misapplied facts and circumstances of substances such that, if considered, the same will warrant the modification or reversal of the outcome of the case.[17]

GR No. 182348

2008-11-20

PEOPLE v. CARLOS DELA CRUZ

VELASCO JR., J.

In Abuan v. People,[12] we affirmed the finding that the accused was in constructive possession of prohibited drugs which had been found in the drawer located in her bedroom.

GR NO. 171578

2007-08-08

HERMINIO BUENAVENTURA Y RECTO v. PEOPLE

CARPIO MORALES, J.

As to illegal possession of marijuana, Abuan v. People[11] enumerates its elements as follows:(a) the accused is in possession of the regulated drugs;

GR NO. 166061

2007-07-06

ANDY QUELNAN Y QUINO v. PEOPLE

TINGA, J.

In every prosecution for the illegal possession of shabu, the following essential elements must be established: (a) the accused is found in possession of a regulated drug; (b) the person is not authorized by law or by duly constituted authorities; and (c) the accused has knowledge that the said drug is a regulated drug.[25]

	GR No. 189669 2015-02-16	PILIPINAS SHELL v. ROMARS INTERNATIONAL GASES PERALTA, J.
The omnibus motion rule embodied in Section 8, Rule 15, in relation to Section 1, Rule 9, demands that all available objections be included in a party's motion, otherwise, said objections shall be deemed waived; and, the only grounds the court could take cognizance of, even if not pleaded in said motion are: (a) lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter; (b) existence of another action pending between the same parties for the same cause; and (c) bar by prior judgment or by statute of limitations.[9] It should be stressed here that the Court has ruled in a number of cases that the omnibus motion rule is applicable to motions to quash search warrants.[10] Furthermore, the Court distinctly stated in Abuan v. People,[11] that "the motion to quash the search warrant which the accused may file shall be governed by the omnibus motion rule, provided, however, that objections not available, existent or known during the proceedings for the quashal of the warrant may be raised in the hearing of the motion to suppress x x x."[12]
	GR No. 179408 2014-03-05	PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEP COMPANY v. ABIGAIL R. RAZON ALVAREZ BRION, J.
The constitutional requirement for the issuance of a search warrant is reiterated under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 126 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. These sections lay down the following requirements for the issuance of a search warrant: (1) the existence of probable cause; (2) the probable cause must be determined personally by the judge; (3) the judge must examine, in writing and under oath or affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce; (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them; and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized.[44] Should any of these requisites be absent, the party aggrieved by the issuance and enforcement of the search warrant may file a motion to quash the search warrant with the issuing court or with the court where the action is subsequently instituted.[45]
	GR No. 198452 2014-02-19	PEOPLE v. VICENTE ROM PEREZ, J.
Definitely, the records do not show that the appellant has the legal authority to possess the four heat-sealed plastic packets of shabu. Settled is the rule that possession of dangerous drugs constitutes prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of a satisfactory explanation of such possession. As such, the burden of evidence is shifted to the accused to explain the absence of knowledge or animus possidendi,[47] which the appellant in this case miserably failed to do.
	GR No. 161106 2014-01-13	WORLDWIDE WEB CORPORATION v. PEOPLE SERENO, C.J.
A trial judge's finding of probable cause may be set aside and the search warrant issued by him based on his finding may be quashed if the person against whom the warrant is issued presents clear and convincing evidence that when the police officers and witnesses testified, they committed a deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth on matters that are essential or necessary to a showing of probable cause.[52] In that case, the finding of probable cause is a nullity, because the trial judge was intentionally misled by the witnesses.[53]
	GR No. 185128 2012-01-30	RUBEN DEL CASTILLO v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
The requisites for the issuance of a search warrant are: (1) probable cause is present; (2) such probable cause must be determined personally by the judge; (3) the judge must examine, in writing and under oath or affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce; (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them; and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized.[12] According to petitioner, there was no probable cause. Probable cause for a search warrant is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.[13] A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was committed by the accused. Probable cause demands more than bare suspicion; it requires less than evidence which would justify conviction.[14] The judge, in determining probable cause, is to consider the totality of the circumstances made known to him and not by a fixed and rigid formula,[15] and must employ a flexible, totality of the circumstances standard.[16] The existence depends to a large degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge conducting the examination. This Court, therefore, is in no position to disturb the factual findings of the judge which led to the issuance of the search warrant. A magistrate's determination of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant is paid great deference by a reviewing court, as long as there was substantial basis for that determination.[17] Substantial basis means that the questions of the examining judge brought out such facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and the objects in connection with the offense sought to be seized are in the place sought to be searched.[18] A review of the records shows that in the present case, a substantial basis exists.
	GR No. 185128 2012-01-30	RUBEN DEL CASTILLO v. PEOPLE PERALTA, J.
The requisites for the issuance of a search warrant are: (1) probable cause is present; (2) such probable cause must be determined personally by the judge; (3) the judge must examine, in writing and under oath or affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce; (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them; and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized.[12] According to petitioner, there was no probable cause. Probable cause for a search warrant is defined as such facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the objects sought in connection with the offense are in the place sought to be searched.[13] A finding of probable cause needs only to rest on evidence showing that, more likely than not, a crime has been committed and that it was committed by the accused. Probable cause demands more than bare suspicion; it requires less than evidence which would justify conviction.[14] The judge, in determining probable cause, is to consider the totality of the circumstances made known to him and not by a fixed and rigid formula,[15] and must employ a flexible, totality of the circumstances standard.[16] The existence depends to a large degree upon the finding or opinion of the judge conducting the examination. This Court, therefore, is in no position to disturb the factual findings of the judge which led to the issuance of the search warrant. A magistrate's determination of probable cause for the issuance of a search warrant is paid great deference by a reviewing court, as long as there was substantial basis for that determination.[17] Substantial basis means that the questions of the examining judge brought out such facts and circumstances as would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed, and the objects in connection with the offense sought to be seized are in the place sought to be searched.[18] A review of the records shows that in the present case, a substantial basis exists.
	GR No. 171980 2010-10-06	PEOPLE v. OLIVE RUBIO MAMARIL PEREZ, J.
The requisites for the issuance of a search warrant are: (1) probable cause is present; (2) such probable cause must be determined personally by the judge; (3) the judge must examine, in writing and under oath or affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce; (4) the applicant and the witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them; and (5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized.[38]
	GR No. 177768 2009-07-27	PEOPLE v. CHARMEN OLIVO Y ALONG QUISUMBING, J.
The well-entrenched rule is that findings of the trial court affirmed by the appellate court are accorded high respect, if not conclusive effect, by this Court, absent clear and convincing evidence that the tribunals ignored, misconstrued or misapplied facts and circumstances of substances such that, if considered, the same will warrant the modification or reversal of the outcome of the case.[17]
	GR No. 182348 2008-11-20	PEOPLE v. CARLOS DELA CRUZ VELASCO JR., J.
In Abuan v. People,[12] we affirmed the finding that the accused was in constructive possession of prohibited drugs which had been found in the drawer located in her bedroom.
	GR NO. 171578 2007-08-08	HERMINIO BUENAVENTURA Y RECTO v. PEOPLE CARPIO MORALES, J.
As to illegal possession of marijuana, Abuan v. People[11] enumerates its elements as follows:(a) the accused is in possession of the regulated drugs;
	GR NO. 166061 2007-07-06	ANDY QUELNAN Y QUINO v. PEOPLE TINGA, J.
In every prosecution for the illegal possession of shabu, the following essential elements must be established: (a) the accused is found in possession of a regulated drug; (b) the person is not authorized by law or by duly constituted authorities; and (c) the accused has knowledge that the said drug is a regulated drug.[25]

ELIZA ABUAN v. PEOPLE