Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
CRIM PRO

CRIM PRO

Ratings: (0)|Views: 242|Likes:
Published by kimm_yun

More info:

Published by: kimm_yun on Jun 19, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/02/2015

pdf

text

original

 
LEOVIGILDO U. MANTARING,
complainant,
vs.
JUDGE MANUEL A. ROMAN, JR.,
RTC, Branch 42, Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro;
and JUDGE IRENEO B. MOLATO,
MTC, Bongabon, Oriental Mindoro,
respondents.
 
[A.M. No. RTJ-93-964. February 28, 1996]
SECOND DIVISION; Mendoza, J.:
Facts:
On the application by a police officer, respondent judge issued a search warrantwhich resulted in the seizure from a certain Joel Gamo of a home-made gun, a handgrenade, five live ammunitions for Cal. 38 and three live ammunitions for 12 gaugeshotgun; a complaint for Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition was filedagainst Gamo in which the herein complainant Leovigildo, Sr. and his son, Leovigildo,Jr., were included and that finding that the house in which the firearms and ammunitionhad been found was owned by complainant and his son, respondent judge concludedthat there was probable cause to believe that complainant and his son were guilty ofillegal possession of firearms and ammunition and accordingly ordered theirarrest. Respondent judge claims that he inhibited himself from the case after he wasordered by the Executive Judge, RTC, Branch 41, Pinamalayan, Oriental Mindoro.Complainant contends that as the search warrant was issued only against Gamo andMantaring, Jr. it was wrong for respondent judge to find probable cause against him onthe theory that, as owners of the house in which the firearms and ammunitions werefound, they had constructive possession of the same.
Issue:
Whether or not there was valid basis for issuance of the warrant of arrest
Ruling: No.
The issuance of a search warrant and of a warrant of arrest requires theshowing of probabilities as to different facts. In the case of search warrants, thedetermination is based on the finding that (1) the articles to be seized are connected toa criminal activity and (2) they are found in the place to be searched. It is not necessarythat a particular person be implicated. On the other hand, in arrest cases, thedetermination of probable cause is based on a finding that a crime has been committedand that the person to be arrested has committed it. It is now settled that in issuingwarrants of arrest in preliminary investigations, the investigating judge must: (a) haveexamined in writing and under oath the complainant and his witnesses by searchingquestions and answers; (b) be satisfied that probable cause exists; and (c) that there isa need to place the respondent under immediate custody in order not to frustrate theends of justice.In this case the respondent judge ordered the issuance of warrant of arrest solelyon his finding of probable cause, totally omitting to consider the third requirement that
there must be a need to place the respondent under immediate custody “in order not to
frustrate the e
nds of justice.”
 
 
ARTHUR DEL ROSARIO and ALEXANDER DEL ROSARIO,
petitioners,vs.
HELLENOR D. DONATO, JR. and RAFAEL V. GONZAGA,
respondents.
G.R. No. 180595, March 5, 2010
 SECOND DIVISION; Abad, J.:
Facts:
Philip Morris Products, Inc wrote the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI),requesting assistance in curtailing the proliferation of fake Marlboro cigarettes. Afterdoing surveillance work in that city, respondent Hellenor Donato, Jr., the NBI agentassigned to the case, succeeded in confirming the storage and sale of such fakecigarettes at the house that belonged to petitioner Alexander del Rosario. Donatoapplied for a search warrant to search the subject premises. But it took a week later forthe RTC to hear the application and issue the search warrant. Despite delay, NBIproceeded to implement the warrant. Their search yielded no fake Marlboro cigarettes.Subsequently, petitioners Del Rosarios filed a complaint for P50 million in damagesagainst respondents NBI agents Donato and Gonzaga and two others before the RTCRespondents NBI agents answered the complaint with a motion to dismiss on thegrounds of: a) the failure of the complaint to state a cause of action; b) forum shopping;and c) the NBI agent
s’ immunity from suit, they being sued as such agents. The RTC
denied the motion. The NBI agents filed a motion for reconsideration but the RTCdenied the same. Special civil action for certiorari was filed by the NBI which the CAgranted.
Issue:
Whether or not the NBI agents unlawfully obtained a search warrant against theDel Rosarios.
Ruling:
NO. A judicially ordered search that fails to yield the described illicit article
does not of itself render the court’s order "unlawful." The Del
Rosarios did not allegethat respondents NBI agents violated their right by fabricating testimonies to convincethe RTC of Angeles City to issue the search warrant. Their allegation that the NBIagents used an unlawfully obtained search warrant is a mere conclusion of law. While amotion to dismiss assumes as true the facts alleged in the complaint, such admissiondoes not extend to conclusions of law. Statements of mere conclusions of law exposethe complaint to a motion to dismiss on ground of failure to state a cause of action.Further, the allegation that the search warrant in this case was served in a maliciousmanner is also not sufficient. Allegations of bad faith, malice, and other related wordswithout ultimate facts to support the same are mere conclusions of law.
 
ENRIQUE V. VIUDEZ II,
petitioner, vs.
THE COURT OF APPEALS
and
HON. BASILIOR. GABO, JR.
, in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of Branch 11, RTC, Malolos.Bulacan, respondents.G.R. No. 152889, June 5, 2009THIRD DIVISION; Peralta, J.:
Facts:
A complaint for the alleged murder of Honorato Galvez and his driver was filedby the PNP with the Office of the Prov. Prosecutor. Upon finding of the probable causeto indict the petitioner and the others for the crime of murder, the prosecutors filed twoinformation for murder with the RTC which issued warrant of arrest on the same day.The petitioner filed a motion to suspend proceedings and to suspend theimplementation of the warrant of arrest. The RTC denied the motion stating that therewas no way for it to recall the warrant of arrest in the absence of any compelling reasonand that the jurisdiction over the person had not yet been acquired by it. Hence, thepetitioner had no personality to file any pleading in court relative to the case until he wasarrested or voluntarily surrendered. A motion for reconsideration was filed but the samewas denied. Petitioner filed with the CA petition for certiorari which was dismissed.
Issue:
Whether or not a pending resolution for review filed with the Secretary of Justiceconcerning probable cause will suspend the proceedings including the implementationof warrant of arrest.
Ruling: NO. T
he function of the judge to issue a warrant of arrest upon thedetermination of probable cause is exclusive; thus, the consequent implementation of awarrant of arrest cannot be deferred pending the resolution of a petition for review bythe Secretary of Justice as to the finding of probable cause, a function that is executivein nature. To defer the implementation of the warrant of arrest would be anencroachment on the exclusive prerogative of the judge. Nowhere in the said provisiondoes it state that the court must hold the proceedings in abeyance. Therefore, thediscretion of the court whether or not to suspend the proceedings or the implementationof the warrant of arrest, upon the motion of the appellant or the trial prosecutor, remainsunhindered. This is in consonance with the earlier ruling of this Court that once acomplaint or information is filed in court, any disposition of the case as to its dismissal,or the conviction or acquittal of the accused, rests on the sound discretion of the saidcourt, as it is the best and sole judge of what to do with the case before it.

Activity (3)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
Lester Anonuevo liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->