Search and Seizure


Nolasco, et al vs. Paño
G.R. No. L-69803
October 8, 1985

Facts:
The present case was subject for resolution.

Supreme Court  held in a criminal case that the arrest of the petitioners was illegal, annulling the decision of respondent Judge Paño, and that the seizure of the items by virtue of the warrant by the same respondent judge are inadmissible as evidence in the Subversive Documents case. However the Court held that the items were to be retained in case it would be used as evidence in a separate criminal case pending before the Special Military Commission No.1, returning the rest which are determined irrelevant by petitioner.

Petitioners questioned the portion of the decision regarding the retention of the properties seized. One of the petitioners also assailed the respondent’s claim that the search was incidental to her arrest for the crime of rebellion.

Issue:
Whether or not some of the properties seized may be introduced as evidence in a separate criminal case.

Held: Click here to see Ruling for Nolasco, et al vs. Paño. :)

CASE DIGEST: Nolasco, et al vs. Paño

Posted on

Monday, July 2, 2012

Category

,

,

,


Jose Burgos vs. Chief of Staff
G.R. No L-64261
December 26, 1984

Facts:

Two warrants were issued against petitioners for the search on the premises of “Metropolitan Mail” and “We Forum” newspapers and the seizure of items alleged to have been used in subversive activities. Petitioners prayed that a writ of preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction be issued for the return of the seized articles, and that respondents be enjoined from using the articles thus seized as evidence against petitioner.

Petitioners questioned the warrants for the lack of probable cause and that the two warrants issued indicated only one and the same address. In addition, the items seized subject to the warrant were real properties.

Issue:
Whether or not the two warrants were valid to justify seizure of the items.

Held: see.: JOSE BURGOS VS. CHIEF OF STAFF RULING

CASE DIGEST: Jose Burgos vs. Chief of Staff

Category

,

,

,

,

,


Alih vs. Castro
151 SCRA 279
 June 23, 1987

Facts:
Respondents who were members of the Philippine marine and defense forces raided the compound occupied by petitioner in search of loose firearms, ammunitions and explosives.  A shoot-out ensued after petitioners resisted the intrusion by the respondents, killing a number of men. The following morning, the petitioners were arrested and subjected to finger –printing, paraffin testing  and photographing despite their objection. Several kinds of rifle, grenades and ammunitions were also confiscated.

The petitioners filed an injunction suit with a prayer to have the items illegally seized returned to them and invoked the provisions on the Bill of Rights

The respondents admitted that the operation was done without a warrant but reasoned that they were acting under superior orders and that operation was necessary because of the aggravation of the peace and order problem  due to the assassination of the city mayor.

Issue:
Whether or not the seizing of the items and the taking of the fingerprints and photographs of the petitioners and subjecting them to paraffin testing are violative of the bill of Rights and are inadmissible as evidence against them.

Held: Click to see Ruling for ALIH VS. CASTRO HERE. :)

CASE DIGEST: ALIH VS. CASTRO

Category

,

,

,