PARTICULARITY OF DESCRIPTION Bache vs. Ruiz Facts: After an instruction from the Comm.

Of Internal revenue, revenue Examiner, Rodolfo de Leon and his witness Arturo Logronio applied for a search warrant against the petitioners , Bache and Co (Phil) for violation of Section 46 (a) and pertinent provisions of the NIR Code, particularly 53, 72,73, 208 and 209. By means of a note, the respondent judge ordered the Deputy Clerk of the Court to depose the witnesses. After an oath, the respondent judge, Vivencio Ruiz signed the application and directed to the peace officers for the serving of the warrant. The officers confiscated 6 boxes of documents by virtue of the warrant. The petitioners, in return filed a motion to dissolve the Search warrant before the CFI Rizal, but was later denied. Hence this petition of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus praying for the quashal of the search warrant issued by the Respondent Judge. Issue: What requisites of a valid search warrant is wanting in the case at bar? Held: The case of Bache and Co. (Phil.), Inc. v. Ruiz, 37 SCRA 823, 835 (1971), pointed out that one of the tests to determine the particularity in the description of objects to be seized under a search warrant is when the things described are limited to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the warrant is being issued. A careful examination of the Search Warrants shows that they were worded in such a manner that the enumerated items to be seized could bear a direct relation to the offense of violation of Section 1 and 3 of Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, penalizing illegal possession of firearms, ammunitions and explosives. What the warrants authorized was the seizure of articles proscribed by that decree, and no other Constitutional provision provides 1) that a search warrant can only be issued upon probable cause 2) single warrant for a single offense 3) particular description of the objects to be seized and 4) the RRC provides that a judge should personally examine the complainant or witnesses that he may produce under oath to prove existence of a probable cause. The deposition should be in writing and should be attached to the record and any affidavits presented to him In the case at bar there is no personal examination done by the respondent judge to the witnesses. While it may be true that deposition is in printed from, subscribed and sworn, the respondent did not even asked the witnesses and the complainant any question to prove existence of a probable cause. Second, the statutory provision of a single warrant for single offense rule is also violated. The single search warrant was

issued for 4 distinct offenses. a) 46 (a) failure to file income tax returns, b) b3 (Withholding income tax at source) c) 209 (failure to make a return of receipts, sales or business gross value output and d) 208 unlawful pursuit of business. Lastly, the search warrant does not indicated a particular or specific description to the object to be seized. A violation in the objective to eliminate general search warrant. *** a search warrant may be said to particularly describe the things to be seized when the description therein is as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow or when the description expresses a conclusion of fact, not of law, by which the warrant officer may be guided in making the search & seizure..

People vs Tee Facts: Tee is a Chinese national in his forties, a businessman, and a resident of Baguio City. A raid conducted by operatives of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and Philippine National Police Narcotics Command (PNP NARCOM) at premises allegedly leased by appellant and at his residence yielded huge quantities of marijuana. On July 20, 1998, appellant moved to quash the search warrant on the ground that it was too general and that the NBI had not complied with the requirements for the issuance of a valid search warrant. In an information dated July 24, 1998, City Prosecutor of Baguio City charged Modesto Tee, alias Estoy Tee, with illegal possession of marijuana, willfully, unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly have in his possession the Ninety-two (92) bricks of dried flowering tops separately contained in four (4) boxes One hundred fifty-eight (158) bricks, twenty-one (21) blocks, and twenty-three (23) bags of dried flowering tops separately contained in thirteen (13) sacks, with a total weight of 336.93 kilograms. Six hundred two (602) bricks of dried flowering tops separately contained in twenty-six (boxes) and a yellow sack, weighing 591.81 kilograms and all having a grand total weight of 928.74 kilograms, a prohibited drug, without the authority of law to possess, in violation of the above-cited provision of law. the prosecution moved to amend the foregoing charge sheet considering that subject marijuana were seized in two (2) different places. As a result, the information was split into two separate information. Prosecution witness Danilo Abratique, a Baguio-based taxi driver, and the appellant Modesto Tee are well acquainted with each other, since Abratiques wife is the sister of Tees sister-in[9] law. Sometime in late June 1998, appellant asked Abratique to find [10] him a place for the storage of smuggled cigarettes. Abratique brought appellant to his friend, Albert Ballesteros, who had a house for rent in Bakakeng, Baguio City. After negotiating the terms and conditions, Ballesteros agreed to rent out his place to appellant. Appellant then brought several boxes of purported blue seal cigarettes to the leased premises.

Shortly thereafter, however, Ballesteros learned that the boxes stored in his place were not blue seal cigarettes but marijuana. Fearful of being involved, Ballesteros informed Abratique. Both later prevailed upon appellant to remove them from the premises. Appellant then hired Abratiques taxi and transported the boxes of cannabis from the Ballesteros place to appellants residence at Km. 6, Dontogan, Green Valley, Sto. Tomas, Baguio City. appellant hired Abratique to drive him to La Trinidad, Benguet on the pretext of buying and transporting strawberries. Upon reaching La Trinidad, however, appellant directed Abratique to proceed to Sablan, Benguet, where appellant proceeded to load several sacks of marijuana in Abratiques taxi. He then asked Abratique to find him a place where he could store the contraband. Abratique brought appellant to his grandmothers house at No. 27 Dr. Cario St., QM Subdivision, Baguio City, which was being managed by Abratiques aunt, Nazarea Abreau. Nazarea agreed to rent a room to appellant. Abratique and appellant unloaded and stored there the sacks of marijuana brought from [14] Sablan. Abratique was aware that they were transporting marijuana as some of the articles in the sacks became exposed in the process of loading. On the morning of July 1, 1998, alerted by information that appellant would retrieve the sacks of prohibited drugs that day, Edwin Fianza and other NBI operatives conducted a stake out at No. 27, Dr. Cario St. While the NBI agents were conducting their surveillance, they noticed that several PNP NARCOM personnel were [17] also watching the place. The NBI then learned that the PNP NARCOM had received a tip from one of their informers regarding the presence of a huge amount of drugs in that place. The NBI and PNP NARCOM agreed to have a joint operation. As the day wore on and appellant did not show up, the NBI agents became apprehensive that the whole operation could be jeopardized. They sought the permission of Nazarea Abreau to enter the room rented by appellant. She acceded and allowed them entry. The NBI team then searched the rented premises and found four (4) boxes and thirteen (13) sacks of marijuana, totaling 336.93 [18] kilograms. Later that evening, NBI Special Agent Darwin Lising, with Abratique as his witness, applied for a search warrant from RTC Judge Antonio Reyes at his residence. Thereafter, the judge issued a warrant directing the NBI to search appellants residence. The NBI operatives, with some PNP NARCOM personnel in tow, proceeded to appellants residence where they served the warrant [21] upon appellant himself. The search was witnessed by appellant, members of his family, barangay officials, and members of the media. The law enforcers found 26 boxes and a sack of dried [24] marijuana in the water tank, garage, and storeroom of appellants [25] residence. The total weight of the haul was 591.81 [26] kilograms. Appellant was arrested for illegal possession of marijuana. The seized items were then submitted to the NBI laboratory for testing. NBI Forensic Chemist Maria Carina Madrigal conducted the tests and showed these to be marijuana. In his defense, appellant contended that the physical evidence of the prosecution was illegally obtained, being the products of an unlawful search, hence inadmissible. Appellant insisted that the search warrant was too general and the process by which said

warrant was acquired did not satisfy the constitutional requirements for the issuance of a valid search warrant. Moreover, Abratiques testimony, which was heavily relied upon by the judge who issued the warrant, was hearsay. the trial court agreed with appellant that the taking of the 336.93 kilograms of marijuana was the result of an illegal search and hence, inadmissible in evidence against appellant. Appellant was accordingly acquitted of the charge. However, the trial court found that the prosecutions evidence was more than ample to prove appellants guilt in Criminal Case No. 15800-R and as earlier stated, duly convicted him of illegal possession of marijuana and sentenced him to death. Appellant initially contends that the warrant, which directed the peace officers to search for and seize an undetermined amount of marijuana, was too general and hence, void for vagueness. He insists that Abratique could already estimate the amount of marijuana supposed to be found at appellants residence since Abratique helped to transport the same. For the appellee, the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) counters that a search warrant is issued if a judge finds probable cause that the place to be searched contains prohibited drugs, and not that he believes the place contains a specific amount of it. The OSG points out that, as the trial court observed, it is impossible beforehand to determine the exact amount of prohibited drugs that a person has on himself. Appellant avers that the phrase an undetermined amount of marijuana as used in the search warrant fails to satisfy the [29] requirement of Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution that the things to be seized must be particularly described. Appellants contention, in our view, has no leg to stand on. Issue: WON, the search warrant is valid despite the lack of particularity of the description? Held: The contitutional requirement of particularity of description of search warrant is primarily meant to be enable the law enforcers serving the warrant to: (1) readily identify the properties to be seized and thus prevent them from seizing the wrong items; and (2) leave said peace officers with no discretion regarding the articles to be seized and thus prevent unreasonable searches and seizures. The search warrant in the present case, given its nearly similar wording, undetermined amount of marijuana or Indian hemp, in our view, has satisfied the Constitutions requirements on particularity of description. The description therein is: (1) as specific as the circumstances will ordinarily allow; (2) expresses a conclusion of fact not of law by which the peace officers may be guided in making the search and seizure; and (3) limits the things to be seized to those which bear direct relation to the offense for which the [40] warrant is being issued. Said warrant imposes a meaningful restriction upon the objects to be seized by the officers serving the warrant. Thus, it prevents exploratory searches, which might be violative of the Bill of Rights.

PEOPLE v VELOSO Facts: -In May, 1923, the building located at No. 124 Calle Arzobispo, City of Manila, was used by an organization known as the Parliamentary Club. Jose Ma. Veloso was at that time a member of the House of Representative of the Philippine Legislature. He was also the manager of the club. -The police of Manila had reliable information that the so-called Parliamentary Club was nothing more than a gambling house. Indeed, on May 19, 1923, J. F. Townsend, the chief of the gambling squad, had been to the club and verified this fact. As a result, on May 25, 1923, Detective Andres Geronimo of the secret service of the City of Manila, applied for, and obtained a search warrant from Judge Garduo of the municipal court. Thus provided, the police attempted to raid the Parliamentary Club a little after three in the afternoon of the date above- mentioned. They found the doors to the premises closed and barred. Accordingly, one band of police including policeman Rosacker, ascended a telephone pole, so as to enter a window of the house. Other policemen, headed by Townsend, broke in the outer door. -Once inside the Parliamentary Club, nearly fifty persons were apprehended by the police. One of them was the defendant Veloso. Veloso asked Townsend what he wanted, and the latter showed him the search warrant. Veloso read it and told Townsend that he was Representative Veloso and not John Doe, and that the police had no right to search the house. Townsend answered that Veloso was considered as John Doe. As Veloso's pocket was bulging, as if it contained gambling utensils, Townsend required Veloso to show him the evidence of the game. About five minutes was consumed in conversation between the policemen and the accused the policemen insisting on searching Veloso, and Veloso insisting in his refusal to submit to the search. -At last the patience of the officers was exhausted. So policeman Rosacker took hold of Veloso only to meet with his resistance. Veloso bit Rosacker in the right forearm, and gave him a blow in another part of the body, which injured the policeman quite severely. Through the combined efforts of Townsend and Rosacker, Veloso was finally laid down on the floor, and long sheets of paper, of reglas de monte, cards, cardboards, and chips were taken from his pockets. -All of the persons arrested were searched and then conducted to the patrol wagons. Veloso again refused to obey and shouted offensive epithets against the police department. It was necessary for the policemen to conduct him downstairs. At the door, Veloso resisted so tenaciously that three policemen were needed to place him in the patrol wagon. Issue: WON the search warrant and the arrest of Veloso was valid. Ruling: Yes.

RD: It is provided, among other things, in the Philippine Code on Criminal Procedure that a search warrant shall not issue except for probable cause and upon application supported by oath particularly describing the place to be searched and the person of thing to be seized. The name and description of the accused should be inserted in the body of the warrant and where the name is unknown there must be such a description of the person accused as will enable the officer to identify him when found. A warrant for the apprehension of a person whose true name is unknown, by the name of "John Doe" or "Richard Roe," "whose other or true name in unknown," is void, without other and further descriptions of the person to be apprehended, and such warrant will not justify the officer in acting under it. Such a warrant must, in addition, contain the best description personae possible to be obtained of the person or persons to be apprehended, and this description must be sufficient to indicate clearly the proper person or persons upon whom the warrant is to be served; and should state his personal appearance and peculiarities, give his occupation and place of residence, and any other circumstances by means of which he can be identified. In the first place, the affidavit for the search warrant and the search warrant itself described the building to be searched as "the building No. 124 Calle Arzobispo, City of Manila, Philippine Islands." This, without doubt, was a sufficient designation of the premises to be searched. As the search warrant stated that John Doe had gambling apparatus in his possession in the building occupied by him at No. 124 Calle Arzobispo, City of Manila, and as this John Doe was Jose Ma. Veloso, the manager of the club, the police could identify John Doe as Jose Ma. Veloso without difficulty.

PANGANDAMAN v CASAR FACTS - On July 27, 1985, a shooting incident occurred in Pantao, Masiu, Lanao del Sur, which left at least five persons dead and two others wounded. What in fact transpired is still unclear. According to one version, armed men had attacked a residence in Pantao, Masiu, with both attackers and defenders suffering casualties. Another version has it that a group that was on its way to another place, Lalabuan, also in Masiu, had been ambushed. - The next day, a lawyer (Atty. Batuampar) of one of the widows filed a letter-complaint with the fiscal, asking for a full blast preliminary investigation. The letter adverted to the possibility of innocent persons being implicated by the parties involved on both sides none of whom was, however, identified and promised that supporting affidavits would shortly be filed. Immediately the Provincial Fiscal addressed a "1st indorsement" to the respondent Judge, transmitting Atty. Batuampar's letter and requesting that "all cases that may be filed relative .. (to the incident) that happened in the afternoon of July 27, 1985," be forwarded to his office, which "has first taken cognizance of said cases. - On August 10, 1985, a criminal complaint for multiple murder was filed. On the same day, respondent Judge examined personally the 3 witnesses. Thereafter, the Judge approved the complaint and issued a warrant of arrest against the 14 petitioners (who were named by the witnesses) and 50 "John Does. - On Aug 14, 1985, an ex-parte motion was filed by Atty. Batuampar seeking recall of the warrant of arrest and subsequent holding of a "thorough investigation" on the ground that the Judge's initial investigation had been "hasty and manifestly haphazard" with "no searching questions" having been propounded. The respondent Judge denied the motion for "lack of basis;" hence the present petition.

matter of hours on a Saturday when municipal trial courts are open only from 8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. Nothing in the record before this Court belies or discredits those affirmations which have, besides, the benefit of the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed. - Insofar, however, as said warrant is issued against fifty (50) "John Does" not one of whom the witnesses to the complaint could or would Identify, it is of the nature of a general warrant, one of a class of writs long proscribed as unconstitutional and once anathematized as "totally subversive of the liberty of the subject." Clearly violative of the constitutional injunction that warrants of arrest should particularly describe the person or persons to be seized, the warrant must, as regards its unidentified subjects, be voided. Dispositive Warrants against petitioners upheld; warrants against John Does denied.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION and LOTUS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioners, vs. MAXICORP, INC., Facts: On 25 July 1996, National Bureau of Investigation ("NBI") Agent Dominador Samiano, Jr. ("NBI Agent Samiano") filed several applications for search warrants in the RTC against Maxicorp for alleged violation of Section 29 of PD 49 and Article 189 of the RPC. After conducting a preliminary examination of the applicant and his witnesses, Judge William M. Bayhon issued Search Warrants against Maxicorp. Armed with the search warrants, NBI agents conducted on 25 July 1996 a search of Maxicorps premises and seized property fitting the description stated in the search warrants. On 2 September 1996, Maxicorp filed a motion to quash the search warrants alleging that there was no probable cause for their issuance and that the warrants are in the form of "general warrants." The RTC denied Maxicorps motion on 22 January 1997. The RTC also denied Maxicorps motion for reconsideration. The RTC found probable cause to issue the search warrants after examining NBI Agent Samiano, John Benedict Sacriz ("Sacriz"), and computer technician Felixberto Pante ("Pante"). The three testified on what they discovered during their respective visits to Maxicorp. NBI Agent Samiano also presented certifications from petitioners that they have not authorized Maxicorp to perform the witnessed activities using petitioners products. On 24 July 1997, Maxicorp filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals seeking to set aside the RTCs order. On 23 December 1998, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTCs order denying Maxicorps motion to quash the search warrants. Petitioners moved for reconsideration. The Court of Appeals denied petitioners motion on 29 November 1999.

ISSUE WON, the Search Warrants are in the Nature of General Warrants? HELD YES - The argument, therefore, must be rejected that the respondent Judge acted with grave abuse of discretion in issuing the warrant of arrest against petitioners without first completing the preliminary investigation in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The rule is and has always been that such issuance need only await a finding of probable cause, not the completion of the entire procedure of preliminary investigation. - Also without appreciable merit is petitioners' other argument that there was scarcely time to determine probable cause against sixtyfour persons (the fourteen petitioners and fifty "Does") within a

The Court of Appeals held that NBI Agent Samiano failed to present during the preliminary examination conclusive evidence that Maxicorp produced or sold the counterfeit products. The Court of Appeals pointed out that the sales receipt NBI Agent Samiano presented as evidence that he bought the products from Maxicorp was in the name of a certain "Joel Diaz." Issue: WON, the Search Warrants are in the Nature of General Warrants? Ruling:

against this standard we find that paragraph (e) is not a general warrant. The articles to be seized were not only sufficiently identified physically, they were also specifically identified by stating their relation to the offense charged. Paragraph (e) specifically refers to those articles used or intended for use in the illegal and unauthorized copying of petitioners software. This language meets the test of specificity. However, we find paragraph (c) of the search warrants lacking in particularity. Paragraph (c) states: c) Sundry items such as labels, boxes, prints, packages, wrappers, receptacles, advertisements and other paraphernalia bearing the copyrights and/or trademarks owned by MICROSOFT CORPORATION; The scope of this description is all-embracing since it covers property used for personal or other purposes not related to copyright infringement or unfair competition. Moreover, the description covers property that Maxicorp may have bought legitimately from Microsoft or its licensed distributors. Paragraph (c) simply calls for the seizure of all items bearing the Microsoft logo, whether legitimately possessed or not. Neither does it limit the seizure to products used in copyright infringement or unfair competition. Still, no provision of law exists which requires that a warrant, partially defective in specifying some items sought to be seized yet particular with respect to the other items, should be nullified as a whole. A partially defective warrant remains valid as to the items 44 specifically described in the warrant. A search warrant is severable, the items not sufficiently described may be cut off without 45 destroying the whole warrant. The exclusionary rule found in Section 3(2) of Article III of the Constitution renders inadmissible in any proceeding all evidence obtained through unreasonable searches and seizure. Thus, all items seized under paragraph (c) of the search warrants, not falling under paragraphs a, b, d, e or f, should be returned to Maxicorp.

A search warrant must state particularly the place to be searched and the objects to be seized. The evident purpose for this requirement is to limit the articles to be seized only to those particularly described in the search warrant. This is a protection against potential abuse. It is necessary to leave the officers of the law with no discretion regarding what articles they shall seize, to the 33 end that no unreasonable searches and seizures be committed. In addition, under Section 4, Rule 126 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, a search warrant shall issue "in connection with one specific offense." The articles described must bear a direct relation 34 to the offense for which the warrant is issued. Thus, this rule requires that the warrant must state that the articles subject of the search and seizure are used or intended for use in the commission of a specific offense. Maxicorp argues that the warrants issued against it are too broad in scope and lack the specificity required with respect to the objects to be seized. After examining the wording of the warrants issued, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Maxicorp and reversed the RTCs Order thus: Under the foregoing language, almost any item in the petitioners store can be seized on the ground that it is "used or intended to be used" in the illegal or unauthorized copying or reproduction of the private 35 respondents software and their manuals. The Court of Appeals based its reversal on its perceived infirmity of paragraph (e) of the search warrants the RTC issued. The appellate court found that similarly worded warrants, all of which noticeably employ the phrase "used or intended to be used," were previously 36 held void by this Court. e) Computer hardware, including central processing units including hard disks, CD-ROM drives, keyboards, monitor screens and diskettes, photocopying machines and other equipment or paraphernalia used or intended to be used in the illegal and unauthorized copying or reproduction of Microsoft software and their manuals, or which contain, display or otherwise exhibit, without the authority of MICROSOFT CORPORATION, any and all Microsoft trademarks and copyrights; It is only required that a search warrant be specific as far as the 38 circumstances will ordinarily allow. The description of the property to be seized need not be technically accurate or precise. The nature of the description should vary according to whether the identity of 39 the property or its character is a matter of concern. Measured

BURGOS versus CHIEF OF STAFF Facts: Assailed in this petition for certiorari prohibition and mandamus with preliminary mandatory and prohibitory injunction is the validity of two [2] search warrants issued on December 7, 1982 by Judge Ernani Cruz-Pano of the then CFI of Rizal [Quezon City], under which the premises of the "Metropolitan Mail" and "We Forum" newspapers, respectively, were searched, and office and printing machines, equipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles used in the printing, publication and distribution of the said newspapers, as well as numerous papers, documents, books and other written literature alleged to be in the possession and control of petitioner Jose Burgos, Jr. publisher-editor of the "We Forum" newspaper, were seized. Petitioners further pray 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 Jose Burgos, Jr. and the other accused in Criminal Case No. Q- 022782 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, entitled People v. Jose Burgos, Jr. et al.

Statements contained in the joint affidavit of Alejandro M. Gutierrez and Pedro U. Tango, members of the Metrocom Intelligence and Security Group under Col. Abadilla which conducted a surveillance of the premises prior to the filing of the application for the search warrants saying "that the evidence gathered and collated by our unit clearly shows that the premises and the articles and things described were used and are continuously being used for subversive activities in conspiracy with, and to promote the objective of, illegal organizations such as the Light-a-Fire Movement, Movement for Free Philippines, and April 6 Movement."

3) 4) 5)

Chin Ho alias Frank Uy while A-2 indicated Uy Chin Ho alias Frank Uy and Unifish Packing Corporation. Two warrants issued at one time for one crime and one place. There is also an allegation that Probable cause is wanting. There is also an alleged lack of particularity in the description of the things seized. They also alleged that other articles not listed in the warrants were taken (e.g. one composition notebook with Chinese characters, Surety Agreement, One bound gate pass, 2 packs of chemicals and others).

Issue: Is the search warrant is in the nature of general warrant ?

6) Because of these irregularities, the petitioner argues contend that the warrant is invalidated and the objects seized by the police enforcers are inadmissible in evidence. Issue: Was the Search warrant issued by the respondent Judge valid as to the particularity of description? Held: Yes. A search warrant must conform strictly constitutional and statutory requirements, namely; Constitutional Requirements: 1) 2) 3) Must be issued upon probable cause. The Probable cause must be determine by the judge himself and not by the applicant or any other person In the determination of the probable cause, the judge must examine, under oath or affirmation, the complainant and such witnesses as the latter may produce, and The warrant issued must particularly describe the place to be searched and persons or things to be seized. to the

Ruling: When the search warrant applied for is directed against a newspaper publisher or editor in connection with the publication of subversive materials, as in the case at bar, the application and/or its supporting affidavits must contain a specification, stating with particularity the alleged subversive material he has published or is intending to publish. Mere generalization will not suffice. Thus, the broad statement in Col. Abadilla's application that petitioner "is in possession or has in his control printing equipment and other paraphernalia, news publications and other documents which were used and are all continuously being used as a means of committing the offense of subversion punishable under Presidential Decree 885, as amended ..." is a mere conclusion of law and does not satisfy the requirements of probable cause. Bereft of such particulars as would justify a finding of the existence of probable cause, said allegation cannot serve as basis for the issuance of a search warrant and it was a grave error for respondent judge to have done so. Another factor that makes the search warrants constitutionally objectionable is that they are in the nature of general warrants. In Stanford v. State of Texas, the US SC declared this type of warrant void. Uy and BIR Facts: Rodrigo Abos, after executing an affidavit and tipping of the NBI, the respondent-judge Mercedez Dadole issues three successive Search Warrants against the petitioner Uy Chin Ho, owner of Unifish Packing Corporation (Mandaue), for violation of Section 253 (attempt to evade and defeat tax) of the NIR Code. After the search, the petitioner filed an appeal to the SC, contending that the respondent judge violated the pertinent provision of the Constitution and Rules of Court in relation with the requisites of a valid search warrant. Thus, they argue that the search warrant is invalid. Contentions 1) In a caption of the A-1 Search Warrant, its address Hernan Cortes St, Cebu City is inconsistent with the address indicated in the succeeding two search warrants which is in Mandaue City. There is also inconsistencies in the name of the persons named in the warrants. A-1 Search Warrants indicated Uy

4)

Regarding the arguments of the petitioner that there is an alleged lack of particularity in the description of the things seized. They also alleged that other articles not listed in the warrants were taken (e.g. one composition notebook with Chinese characters, Surety Agreement, One bound gate pass, 2 packs of chemicals and others). The constitution requires that objects to be seized should be particularly described so as to eliminate general warrants. In the case at bar the things to be seized are described as: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) Multiple sets of Books of Accounts, Ledgers, journals etc. Production record Books. Unregistered delivery receipts. Unregistered Purchase and Sales invoices. Sales, records, Job orders. Corporate Financial Records Bank Statements.

2)

The court held that these descriptions failed to conform the requirements set forth by the Constitution. The judge, despite of

the witnesses procurement of documents need to be searched, the respondent judge still employed generic descriptions. The use of generic terms are acceptable only when a more specific description of the things to be seized is unavailable. The failure to employ specific description will render the warrant invalid. However in the case of unregistered delivery receipts and unregistered purchase and sales invoices is excusable, the generic description is needed in this case since there is no way to make these documents specified because they are UNREGISTERED. The seizure of these objects is valid. In the case of the objects seized which are not specified in the warrant, it should be returned to the petitioners.

Note definition:

Search Warrant, Defined A search warrant is an order in writing issued in the name of the PPI, signed by the judge and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property described therein and bring it before the court.

The place to be searched in the warrant is controlling