This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2016-02-03 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Thus, applying Ty in its entirety to the present case, the Court finds that there exists probable cause for the issuance of search warrants as applied for by petitioners. Probable cause for purposes of issuing a search warrant refers to "such facts and circumstances which could lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been committed and that the item(s), article(s) or object(s) sought in connection with said offense or subject to seizure and destruction by law is in the place to be searched."[36] On the other hand, probable cause for purposes of filing a criminal information refers to "such facts as are sufficient to engender a well-founded belief that a crime has been committed and that respondents are probably guilty thereof. It is such set of facts and circumstances which would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe mat the offense charged in the Information, or any offense included therein, has been committed by the person sought to be arrested."[37] Thus, while Ty refers to preliminary investigation proceedings, and the instant case is concerned with applications for the issuance of search warrants, both are resolved based on the same degree of proof; the pronouncement in Ty may therefore apply to the present controversy. | |||||
|
2012-12-10 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| This Court has consistently held that the validity of the issuance of a search warrant rests upon the following factors: (1) it must be issued upon probable cause; (2) the probable cause must be determined by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any other person; (3) in the determination of probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce; and (4) the warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons and things to be seized.[51] | |||||
|
2012-04-11 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Accused-appellant has made much of what he perceived as inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly, as to how the door of the house was opened and who actually witnessed the search conducted in the bedroom of the house. These alleged inconsistencies pertain to minor details and are so inconsequential that they do not in any way affect the credibility of the witnesses nor detract from the established fact of illegal possession of a brick of marijuana leaves, sachets of methamphetamine hydrochloride or shabu, and paraphernalia by accused-appellant, without authorization or prescription. We have previously held that "discrepancies and inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses referring to minor details, and not in actuality touching upon the central fact of the crime, do not impair their credibility. Testimonies of witnesses need only corroborate each other on important and relevant details concerning the principal occurrence." In fact, "such minor inconsistencies may even serve to strengthen the witnesses' credibility as they negate any suspicion that the testimonies have been rehearsed."[37] | |||||