Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 4 – Stef Macapagal

Search and Seizure


Title Facts Issue/s Ruling Doctrine
Abenes v. CA Rodolfo Abenes, a barangay W/N the checkpoint was legally YES. The production of a Not all checkpoints are illegal.
GR No. 156320 chairman, was charged with set up. mission order is not necessary in Those which are warranted by
14 February 2007 illegal possession of high view of the fact that the the exigencies of public order
Austria-Martinez, J. powered firearm and its checkpoint was established three and are conducted in a way least
ammunitions during the election days before the May 11, 1998 intrusive to motorists are
period. Two Informations were elections; and the circumstances allowed. For as long as the
filed for (1) illegal possession of under which the policemen vehicle is neither searched nor its
firearms and its ammunitions; found the gun warranted its occupants subjected to a body
and (2) violation of the Omnibus seizure without a warrant (plain search, and the inspection of the
Election Code. view). vehicle is limited to a visual
search, said routine checks
The firearm was confiscated W/N Abenes’ constitutional right NO. The law enforcement cannot be regarded as violative
from Abenes at a checkpoint against unlawful search and officers lawfully made an initial of an individual’s right against
wherein his vehicle was stopped seizure had been violated. intrusion because of the unreasonable search.
and he was asked to alight the enforcement of the Gun Ban and
same for routine inspection. The were properly in a position from Under the plain view doctrine,
police saw the firearm tucked in which they particularly viewed objects falling in the “plain
his waist, and asked him to the area. In the course of such view” of an officer who has a
produce a license for it. When lawful intrusion, the policemen right to be in the position to have
Abenes could not produce one, came inadvertently across a piece that view are subject to seizure
the police confiscated the of evidence incriminating and may be presented as
firearm. It was then found that Abenes where they saw the gun evidence.
Abenes was not a registered nor tucked into his waist. The gun
a licensed firearm holder. was in plain view and discovered The plain view doctrine applies
inadvertently when Abenes when the following requisites
The trial court then convicted alighted from the vehicle. concur:
Abenes on both charges. Abenes (a) the law enforcement officer in
appealed to the CA alleging that However, there is insufficient search of the evidence has a prior
the checkpoint was not shown to evidence that the firearm Abenes justification for an intrusion or is
have been legally set up, and that carried had no license. Thus, for in a position from which he can
his constitutional right against failure of the prosecution to view a particular area;
unlawful search and seizure was prove beyond reasonable doubt (b) the discovery of the evidence
violated. The CA affirmed the that Abenes was carrying a in plain view is inadvertent;
trial court. firearm without prior authority, (c) it is immediately apparent to
license or permit, the latter must the officer that the item he
be exculpated from criminal observes may be evidence of a
liability under the illegal crime, contraband or otherwise
possession of firearms law. subject to seizure.
However, Abenes is still
convicted for violation of the
Comelec Gun Ban.

1
Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 4 – Stef Macapagal

Aniag v. COMELEC In pursuance of the Gun Ban, W/N the warrantless search of YES. The records do not show As a rule, a valid search must be
GR No. 104961 Representative Francisco Aniag Aniag’s car and the seizure of the that the manner by which the authorized by a search warrant
7 October 1994 instructed his driver, Ernesto guns violated his right against package was bundled led the duly issued by an appropriate
Bellosillo, J. Arellano, to pick up his two unlawful search and seizure. PNP to suspect that it contained authority. However, this is not
firearms which were issued to firearms. There was no mention absolute. Aside from a search
him by the House of either of any report regarding incident to a lawful arrest, a
Representatives. Aniag told any nervous, suspicious, or warrantless search had been
Arellano to deliver the guns to unnatural reaction from Arellano upheld in cases of moving
the Sergeant-at-Arms of the when the car was stopped and vehicles and the seizure of
House of Representatives. searched. Given these evidence in plain view, as well as
circumstances and relying on its the search conducted at police or
Outside the Batasan Complex, a visual observation, the PNP military checkpoints.
checkpoint was set up. The car could not thoroughly search the
being driven by Arellano was car lawfully as well as the An extensive search without
flagged down and searched. The package without violating the warrant could only be resorted to
firearms were found neatly constitutional injunction. if the officers conducting the
packed in their gun cases and Consequently, the firearms search had reasonable or
placed in a bag in the trunk of the obtained in violation of probable cause to believe before
car. As such, he was petitioner’s right against the search that either the motorist
apprehended and detained. warrantless search cannot be was a law offender or that they
admitted for any purpose in any would find the instrumentality or
COMELEC then filed an proceeding. evidence pertaining to the
Information against Aniag and commission of a crime in the
Arellano for violation of the W/N the seeming acquiescence NO. Arellano did not know the vehicle to be searched. The
Omnibus Election Code. Aniag of Arellano to the search purpose of the checkpoint. In the existence of probable cause
was also disqualified from constitutes an implied waiver of face of 14 armed policemen justifying the warrantless search
running in the elections. Aniag’s right to question the conducting the operation, is determined by the facts of each
reasonableness of the search of Arellano being alone and a mere case.
the vehicle and the seizure of the employee of Aniag could not
firearms. have marshaled the strength and
the courage to protest against the
extensive search conducted in the
vehicle. In such scenario, the
“implied acquiescence,” if there
was any, could not be more than
a mere passive conformity on
Arellano’s part to the search, and
“consent” given under
intimidating or coercive
circumstances is no consent
within the purview of the
constitutional guaranty.
Summerville General Summerville General W/N the cards inside the plastic NO. Summerville’s assertion that There exists a constitutional
Merchandising v. CA Merchandising, Co. sells Royal containers are also “subject of the Crown Playing Cards are safeguard against unreasonable
GR No. 158767 Playing Cards. Its the offense” and should not have “subject of the offense” is searches and seizures, which

2
Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 4 – Stef Macapagal

26 June 2007 President/General Manager Ang been returned to Arotech. erroneous. The articles seized refers to the immunity of one’s
Chico-Nazario, J. complained to the authorities that had little, if any, evidentiary person from interference by the
Arotech International value for the criminal action of government, included in which is
Corporation had violated the trademark infringement relating his residence, his papers and
Intellectual Property Code of the to the use of the plastic other possessions. The
Philippines by engaging in containers. Moreover, Constitution, however, does not
unauthorized manufacturing, Summerville does not dispute provide a blanket prohibition
distribution, and sale of Royal that the design and/or mark of against all searches and seizures;
Playing Cards. The authorities the Crown Playing Cards is rather, the fundamental
applied for a search warrant owned by Arotech. In fact, there protection accorded by the search
against Arotech, which was is no allegation that the design and seizure clause is that,
granted. They were able to and/or mark of such playing between persons and the police,
acquire, among others, Crown cards is a reproduction, there must stand the protective
Playing Cards which used the counterfeit, copy, or colorable authority of a magistrate clothed
plastic containers which were imitation of another registered with the power to issue or refuse
alleged to have infringed the mark legally owned by another; such search warrant.
containers of the Royal Playing hence, no trademark
Cards. infringement appears to have The responsibilities of a
been committed or perpetrated to magistrate do not end with the
Arotech moved for the return of warrant the inference that the granting of the warrant, but
the seized items, claiming that Crown Playing Cards are extends to the custody of the
the cards that were seized were “subject of the offense,” fruits of articles seized. In exercising
Crown, not Royal, Playing the offense, or used or intended custody over these articles, the
Cards, and so could not have to be used as means of property rights of the owner
been subject of the offense. committing an offense. should be balanced with the
Moreover, the warrant that was societal need to preserve
issued was a general search evidence, which will be used in
warrant because the warrant the prosecution of a case.
failed to describe the things to be
seized with particularity.

The RTC then ordered that the


seized Crown Playing Cards
should be released to Arotech,
leaving only the plastic
containers in the custody of
Summerville, since the violation
of the intellectual property right
of Summerville was limited only
to the plastic container cases,
which should have been the only
items subject of the warrant. CA,
on appeal, affirmed the RTC.
Yao v. People The Yaos are incorporators and W/N there was probable cause to YES. The NBI operatives were A search warrant can be issued
GR No. 168306 officers of Masagana Gas issue the search warrant. able to present testimonial, only upon a finding of probable

3
Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 4 – Stef Macapagal

19 June 2007 Corporation, which is engaged in documentary, and object cause. Probable cause for search
Chico-Nazario, J. the refilling, sale, and evidence that they had personal warrant means such facts and
distribution of LPG products. knowledge of the fact that circumstances which would lead
Two applications for search Masagana has been using the a reasonably discreet and prudent
warrants were filed against LPG cylinders bearing the marks man to believe that an offense
Masagana which alleged that the of Gasul and Shellane without has been committed and that the
containers they were using the permission from Petron or Shell, objects sought in connection with
steel cylinders of LPG owned by a probable cause for trademark the offense are in the place to be
Petron and Shell, without infringement. searched.
authority from the two entities,
in violation of the Intellectual W/N the search warrants are NO. The search warrants in Mere unauthorized use of a
Property Code. The search general warrants for not question commanded any peace container bearing a registered
warrants were issued after the particularly describing the place officer to make an immediate trademark in connection with the
judge found probable cause, and to be searched. search on the Masagana sale, distribution or advertising
the containers of Gasul and compound located at Governor’s of goods or services which is
Shellane were confiscated from Drive, Barangay Lapidario, likely to cause confusion,
Masagana’s premises. Also Trece Martires, Cavite City. It mistake or deception among the
among the items seized were a appears that the raiding team had buyers/consumers can be
motor compressor and an LPG ascertained and reached the considered as trademark
refilling machine. Masagana compound without infringement.
difficulty since Masagana does
Masagana alleges that the search not have any other offices/plants The determination of probable
warrants served on them are in in Trece Martires. Moreover, one cause does not call for the
the nature of general warrants as of the NBI officials who was application of the rules and
the items enumerated to be with the raiding team was standards of proof that a
seized were being used in the already familiar with the judgment of conviction requires
conduct of Masagana’s lawful compound as he was one of after trial on the merits. As the
business and the same are not those who monitored and term implies, “probable cause” is
being used in refilling Shellane conducted test-buys thereat. And concerned with probability, not
and Gasul LPGs. It also avers even if there are several absolute or even moral certainty.
that the search warrants were structures inside the compound, The standards of judgment are
general in nature as the there was no need to those of a reasonably prudent
Masagana compound is about particularize the areas to be man, not the exacting
10,000m2 with several structures searched, because the structures calibrations of a judge after a full
erected on the lot, the search constitute the essential and blown trial.
warrants should have defined the necessary components of
areas to be searched. The RTC Masagana’s business and cannot The long standing rule is that a
ruled against it. The CA affirmed be treated separately as they description of the place to be
the RTC. form part of one entire searched is sufficient if the
compound. The compound is officer with the warrant can, with
owned and used solely by reasonable effort, ascertain and
Masagana. What the case law identify the place intended and
merely requires is that, the place distinguish it from other places in
to be searched can be the community. Any designation
distinguished in relation to the or description known to the

4
Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 4 – Stef Macapagal

other places in the community. locality that points out the place
Indubitably, this requisite was to the exclusion of all others, and
complied with in the instant case. on inquiry leads the officers
unerringly to it, satisfies the
W/N the search warrants are NO. The items to be seized under constitutional requirement.
general warrants for not the search warrants were
particularly describing the things described with particularity. The In the determination of whether a
to be seized. articles to be confiscated were search warrant describes the
restricted only to those which premises to be searched with
bear direct relation to the offense sufficient particularity, it has
(violation of Sec. 155 of RA been held that the executing
8293). Thus, the requirement of officer’s prior knowledge as to
particularity of description is the place intended in the warrant
satisfied. Given the foregoing, is relevant. This would seem to
the indication of the accurate be especially true where the
sizes of the Gasul and Shellane executing officer is the affiant on
LPG cylinders or tanks would be whose affidavit the warrant had
unnecessary. been issued, and when he knows
that the judge who issued the
warrant intended the compound
described in the affidavit.

While it is true that property to


be seized under a warrant must
be particularly described therein
and no other property can be
taken thereunder, yet the
description is required to be
specific only in so far as the
circumstances will ordinarily
allow. The law does not require
that the things to be seized must
be described in precise and
minute details as to leave no
room for the applicants to obtain
a search warrant as they would
not know exactly what kind of
things they are looking for. Once
described, however, the articles
subject of the search and seizure
need not be so invariant as to
require absolute concordance
between those seized and those
described in the warrant.
Substantial similarity of those

5
Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 4 – Stef Macapagal

articles described as a class or


specie would suffice.

The law does not require that the


property to be seized should be
owned by the person against
whom the search warrant is
directed. Ownership is of no
consequence, and it is sufficient
that the person against whom the
warrant is directed has control or
possession of the property sought
to be seized.
People v. Nuevas Police officers Fami and W/N Din and Inocencio waived NO. The search conducted in Our Constitution states that a
GR No. 170233 Cabling, during a stationary their right against unreasonable Nuevas’ case was made with his search and seizure must be
22 February 2007 surveillance and monitoring of searches and seizures. consent. However, in Din’s case, carried through or with a judicial
Tinga, J. illegal drug trafficking in there was none. There is reason warrant; otherwise, such search
Olongapo City, came across to believe that Nuevas indeed and seizure becomes
Jesus Nuevas, who they willingly submitted the plastic “unreasonable” and any evidence
suspected to be carrying drugs. bag with the incriminating obtained therefrom is
Upon inquiry, Nuevas showed contents to the police officers. It inadmissible for any purpose in
them a plastic bag which can be seen that in his desperate any proceeding. The exceptions
contained marijuana leaves and attempt to exculpate himself are:
bricks wrapped in a blue cloth. from any criminal liability, he (1) Warrantless search
He then informed the officers of cooperated with the police, gave incidental to a lawful
2 other persons who would be them the plastic bag, and even arrest;
making marijuana deliveries. revealed his associates, offering (2) Search of evidence in
himself as an informant. His “plain view”;
The police officers then actuations were consistent with (3) Search of a moving
proceeded to where Nuevas said the lamentable human inclination vehicle;
his associates, Reynaldo Din and to find excuses, blame others, (4) Consented warrantless
Fernando Inocencio, could be and save oneself even at the cost search;
located. Din was carrying a of others’ lives. Thus, the Court (5) Customs search;
plastic bag which contained would have affirmed Nuevas’ (6) Stop and frisk; and
marijuana packed in newspaper conviction had he not withdrawn (7) Exigent and emergency
and wrapped therein. When the his appeal. On the other hand, circumstances.
police officers introduced with respect to the search
themselves, Din voluntarily conducted in the case of Din, the Elements of search of evidence
handed the plastic bag over to Court finds that no such consent in plain view:
them. After the items were had actually been given. The (a) Prior valid intrusion
confiscated, the police officers police officers gave inconsistent, based on the valid
took the three men to the police dissimilar testimonies regarding warrantless arrest in
office. the manner by which they got which the police are
hold of the plastic bag. Neither legally present in the
Police officer Fami then revealed can Din’s silence at the time be pursuit of their official

6
Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 4 – Stef Macapagal

that when the receipt of the construed as an implied duties;


evidence was prepared, all 3 acquiescence to the warrantless (b) Inadvertent discovery
accused were not represented by search. Thus, the prosecution of the evidence by the
counsel. He likewise disclosed failed to clearly show that Din police who have the
that he was the one who escorted intentionally surrendered his right to be where they
all the accused during their right against unreasonable are;
physical examination. He also searches. On the other hand, (c) The evidence must be
escorted all 3 to the Fiscal’s Inocencio’s supposed possession immediately apparent;
office where they were informed of the dried marijuana leaves was and
of the charges against them. sought to be shown through his (d) “Plain view” justified
act of looking into the plastic bag mere seizure of
The 3 were found guilty by the that Din was carrying. The act evidence without
trial court, and the case was attributed to Inocencio is further search.
automatically elevated to the CA insufficient to establish illegal
for review. However, Nuevas possession of the drugs or even In the instances where a warrant
withdrew his appeal. Thus, the conspiracy to illegally possess is not necessary to effect a valid
case was considered closed and the same. The prosecution failed search or seizure, or when the
terminated as to him. The CA to show by convincing proof that latter cannot be performed except
affirmed the trial court. Inocencio knew of the contents without a warrant, what
of the bag and that he conspired constitutes a reasonable or
with Din to possess the illegal unreasonable search or seizure is
items. purely a judicial question,
determinable from the
uniqueness of the circumstances
involved, including the purpose
of the search and seizure, the
presence or absence of probable
cause, the manner in which the
search and seizure was made, the
place or thing searched and the
character of the articles procured.

A search incidental to a lawful


arrest is sanctioned by the Rules
of Court. The arrest, however,
must precede the search; the
process cannot be reversed.
Nevertheless, a search
substantially contemporaneous
with an arrest can precede the
arrest if the police have probable
cause to make the arrest at the
outset of the search.

An object is in plain view if it is

7
Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 4 – Stef Macapagal

plainly exposed to sight. Where


the object seized was inside a
closed package, the object itself
is not in plain view and therefore
cannot be seized without a
warrant. However, if the package
proclaims its contents, whether
by its distinctive configuration,
its transparency, or if its contents
are obvious to an observer, then
the contents are in plain view and
may be seized.

It must be seen that the consent


to the search was voluntary in
order to validate an otherwise
illegal detention and search—the
consent must be unequivocal,
specific, and intelligently given,
uncontaminated by duress or
coercion.

The consent to a search is not to


be lightly inferred, but must be
shown by clear and convincing
evidence. It is the State which
has the burden of proving, by
clear and positive testimony, that
the necessary consent was
obtained and that it was freely
and voluntarily given.

In case of consented searches or


waiver of the constitutional
guarantee against obstrusive
searches, it is fundamental that to
constitute a waiver, it must first
appear that:
(1) The right exists;
(2) The person involved
had knowledge, either
actual or constructive,
of the existence of such
right; and
(3) The said person had an

8
Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 4 – Stef Macapagal

actual intention to
relinquish such right.

Obiter:
To behold is not to hold.
Silahis International Hotel v. Employees (and officers of the W/N the constitutional protection YES. When the officers of the According to the New Civil
Loluta hotel union) of Silahis against illegal searches and Silahis International Hotel Code, even private individuals
GR No. 163087 International Hotel, Inc. were seizures is meant to be invoked barged into and searched the who violates or in any manner
20 February 2006 being accused of having violated against private individuals. union office without a search impedes or impairs the right of
Carpio-Morales, J. the Dangerous Drugs Act when a warrant, despite having ample any person against unlawful
plastic bag containing marijuana time to procure one, they searches and seizures shall be
flowering tops was found inside violated the rights of the union liable to the latter for damages. It
the union office. officers against unlawful search is not even necessary that the
and seizure. The course they took private individual who violates
Due to the “suspicious stinks in illegality, it not falling the same right should have acted
circumstance of confiscation” of under any of the exceptional with malice or bad faith. It
the plastic bag, it was deemed instances when a warrantless suffices that there is a violation
inadmissible in evidence by the search is allowed by law. Their of the constitutional right.
trial court, and the accused violation of the rights of the
employees were acquitted. union officers against While it is doctrinal that the right
unreasonable search thus against unreasonable searches
The employees then filed a case furnishes the basis for the award and seizures is a personal right
against Silahis International of damages under Article 32 of which may be waived expressly
Hotel for malicious prosecution the Civil Code. or impliedly, a waiver by
and violation of their implication cannot be presumed.
constitutional right against illegal There must be clear and
search. As such, the trial court convincing evidence of an actual
held the hotel along with the intention to relinquish it to
others who conducted the search constitute a waiver thereof.
liable for damages. The CA
reduced the amount of damages, What constitutes a valid waiver
but affirmed the decision. of a right:
(1) That the right exists;
(2) That the person
involved had
knowledge, either
actual or constructive,
of the existence of such
right;
(3) That the said person
had an actual intention
to relinquish the right.
Abuan v. People A search warrant was applied for W/N the search warrant issued NO. The evidence presented by The requisites for the issuance of
GR No. 168773 to search the premises of the by the Executive Judge is void Abuan that Gorospe was not a a search warrant are:
27 October 2006 house of Eliza Abuan for for not being based on probable resident or transient of their (1) Probable cause is

9
Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 4 – Stef Macapagal

Callejo, Sr., J. violation of RA 6425. A Marissa cause but mere fabrications. barangay, even if true and present;
Gorospe was called on to credible, is not at all material or (2) Such probable cause
substantiate the existence of necessary to the determination of must be determined
probable cause. Afterwards, the probable cause. Whether Abuan personally by the
search warrant was issued. and Gorospe were dealers of judge;
Avon Cosmetics may be relevant (3) The judge must
When the search warrant was to the issue of whether there is examine, in writing and
served on Abuan, police officers factual basis for the finding of under oath or
were able to acquire from her 57 probable cause by the Executive affirmation, the
sachets of shabu. Judge against Abuan; however, complainant and the
Abuan’s evidence to prove this witnesses he or she
During the trial, it was found that claim is tenuous and does not may produce;
Marissa Gorospe was a fictitious warrant the quashal of the (4) The applicant and the
person. However, after trial, warrant and the suppression of witnesses testify on the
Abuan was still found guilty. evidence seized after the facts personally known
The CA affirmed. enforcement of the search to them; and
warrant. (5) The warrant
specifically describes
the place to be
searched and the things
to be seized.

Probable cause 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.

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, and must
employ a flexible, totality of the
circumstances standard. Probable
cause exists if a practical,
common-sense evaluation of the
facts and circumstances show a
fair possibility that dangerous
drugs will be found in the
asserted location.

10
Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 4 – Stef Macapagal

Solid Triangle Sales v. Sheriff The Economic Intelligence and W/N Judge Bruselas, by NO. It may be true that, as a Only judges have the power to
GR No. 144309 Investigation Bureau (EIIB) quashing the warrant, has result of the quashal of the issue search warrants. This
23 November 2003 applied for a search warrant unjustly deprived Solid Triangle warrant, Solid Triangle is function is exclusively judicial.
Kapunan, J. against Sanly Corporation for of its evidence for the deprived of vital evidence to
unfair competition. By virtue of preliminary investigation. establish its case, but such is the Inherent in the courts’ power to
the warrant, they obtained 451 inevitable consequence. issue search warrants is the
boxes of Mitsubishi Nevertheless, the inadmissibility power to quash warrants already
photographic color paper. of the evidence obtained through issued. In this connection, the
an illegal warrant does not motion to quash should be filed
Solid Triangle, which claims to necessarily render the in the court that issued the
be the sole and exclusive preliminary investigation warrant unless a criminal case
distributor of the said paper, then academic. The preliminary has already been instituted in
filed a complaint for unfair investigation and the filing of the another court, in which case, the
competition against the members information may still proceed if, motion should be filed with the
of the Board of Sanly and LWT because of other (admissible) latter.
Co., Inc. It alleged the LWT was evidence, there exists “sufficient
in conspiracy with Sanly in ground to engender a well- In the determination of probable
selling and/or distributing the founded belief that a crime has cause, the court must necessarily
said paper. been committed and the resolve whether or not an offense
respondent is probably guilty exists to justify the issuance or
Subsequently, a motion to quash thereof, and should be held for quashal of the search warrant.
the search warrant was granted trial.” The finding by the court
by Judge Bruselas, who stated that no crime exists does not The determination of probable
that he doubts whether the unfair preclude the authorized officer cause during a preliminary
competition is criminal in nature. conducting the preliminary investigation has been described
Thus the evidence seized were investigation from making its as an executive function.
returned to Sanly. Solid Triangle own determination that a crime
opposed, stating that the seized has been committed and that The proceedings for the
items were needed as evidence in probable cause exists for issuance/quashal of a search
the investigation for unfair purposes of filing the warrant before a court on the one
competition. On certiorari, the information. hand, and the preliminary
CA ruled that the quashing of the investigation before an
warrant deprived the prosecution W/N a court which issued a YES. The court which issued a authorized officer on the other,
of vital evidence to determine search warrant could entertain a search warrant may be prevented are proceedings entirely
probable cause. However, on motion to quash or suppress from resolving a motion to quash independent of each other. One is
MR, the CA reversed itself and evidence while a preliminary or suppress evidence only when not bound by the other’s findings
held that there was no probable investigation is ongoing. a criminal case is subsequently as regards the existence of a
cause for the issuance of the filed in another court, in which crime. The purpose of each
search warrant. case, the motion is to be resolved proceeding differs from the
by the latter court. If this were other. The first is to determine
not so, a person whose property whether a warrant should issue or
has been seized by virtue of an be quashed, and the second,
invalid warrant would be without whether an information should be
remedy while the goods procured filed in court.
by virtue thereof are subject of a

11
Constitutional Law Case Digest Matrix Set 4 – Stef Macapagal

preliminary investigation. The effect of the quashal on the


ground that no offense has been
committed is to render the
evidence obtained by virtue of
the warrant “inadmissible for any
purpose in any proceeding,”
including the preliminary
investigation.

12