MICROSOFT VS.

MAXICORP

FACTS:

Agent Samiano is a member of the NBI, he filed several applications in the RTC for
search warrants against Maxicorp for allegedly using and selling products of Microsoft.
A search warrant was issued by Judge William Bayhon against Maxicorp. Upon release
of search warrant, the NBI proceeded with the search. 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. RTC denied the motion to
quash. On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC ruling and affirmed the motion to quash.
Thus, the instant petition.

ISSUE:

1. WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS PROBABLE CAUSE TO ISSUE THE

SEARCH WARRANTS
2. WHETHER OR NOT SEARCH WARRANTS ARE GENERAL WARRANTS

HELD:

1. YES, THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE. Probable cause means “such reasons,

supported by facts and circumstances as will warrant a cautious man in the
belief that his action and the means taken in prosecuting it are legally just and
proper. The testimonies of these two witnesses, coupled with the object and
documentary evidence they presented, are sufficient to establish the
existence of probable cause. From what they have witnessed, there is reason
to believe that Maxicorp engaged in copyright infringement and unfair
competition to the prejudice of petitioners.(Through the sales receipt, under
the name of Joel Diaz). The determination of probable cause does not call for
the application of rules and standards of proof that a judgment of conviction
requires after trial on the merits.
2. YES, SOME ARE GENERAL WARRANTS. A partially defective warrant
remains valid as to the items specifically described in the warrant. 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. The petition is partially granted.
The search and seizure is proper EXCEPT, with respect to articles seized
under par. C and should be returned to Maxicorp. BUT, it did not make the
search VOID.
PEOPLE VS. TEE

FACTS:

Estoy Tee is a chinese national, a businessman and a resident in Baguio City. NBI and
PNP conducted a raid to which where Estoy is residing and that at his residence yielded
a huge quantities of marijuana. Estoy, filed a motion to quash the search warrant on the
ground that it was too general for the issuance of a valid search warrant.. Estoy hired
Abratique’s taxi for the transportation of the boxes of cannabis from Ballesteros place to
Estoy’s place. Abratique was also hired by Estoy to transport other packs of the illegal
drugs to other places and even asked him a store to where he can place the
contraband. Abratique brought Estoy to his grandmother’s house and rent a room there.
Abratique is aware that they are transporting marijuanas. Abratique and Nazarea, his
aunt were bothered by the nature of the goods stored by Estoy in the store. Edwin
Fianza, a member of the family is an NBI agent. Upon knowing that those good were
marijuana, Edwin informed NBI operatives, while under surveillance of the place PNP
had received a tip in the same place, thereby having a joint operation between PNP and
NBI. The city prosecutor of baguio charged Estoy with illegal possession of marijuana,
all the marijuana’s totally weighed of about 591.81 kgs, a prohibited drug without the
authority of law to possess. The RTC ruled in the first case that there was an illegal
search and in the second case, Estoy is guilty of Illegal Possession of Marijuana and
sentenced him to death.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE SEARCH WARRANT IS VALID

HELD:

YES. The search warrant in the present case, given its nearly similar wording,
“undetermined amount of marijuana or Indian hemp,” in the view of the court, has
satisfied the Constitution’s requirements on particularity of description. In the instant
case, it is not disputed that Judge Antonio Reyes personally examined NBI Special
Investigator III Darwin A. Lising, the applicant for the search warrant as well as his
witness, Danilo G. Abratique. Substantial basis is also present in the case which means
that the questions of the examining judge brought out such facts and circumstances as
would lead a reasonably discreet and prudent man to believe that an offense has been
committed, and the objects in connection with the offense sought to be seized are in the
place sought to be searched. Tests conducted by the NBI forensic chemist proved the
seized articles to be marijuana. These articles were seized pursuant to a valid search
warrant and hence, fully admissible in evidence.
TUMBASEN VS. PP

FACTS:

P/Sgt. Flumar Natuel applied for the issuance of a search warrant from the MTCC,
alleging that he received an information regarding tambasen who had in his possession
armalite rifles (16), dynamite sticks and subversive documents which were intended for
illegal purposes. The search warrant was granted, the police team searched the house
and seized the articles including a cash with a total amount of 14,000. Tambasen, filed
an urgent motion for the return of the seized articles, and also requested that Sgt.
Natuel be required to submit the complete and verified inventory of the seized articles.
Lt. Torres, a station commander said that the seized amount of 14, 000 were earmarked
for the payment of the allowance of the Armed city of Partisan in Bacolod. MTCC
ordered Lt. Torres to return the seized money. SolGen petitioned with the RTC for
the annulment of the order of MTCC citing that pending the determination of legality of
seizure of the articles, they should remain in custogia legis. RTC granted the petition.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE SEIZURE OF ARTICLES NOT MENTIONED IN THE

SEARCH WARRANT IS VALID

HELD:

NO. The money which was not indicated in the search warrant had been illegally seized
from petitioner. The fact that the members of the police team were doing their task of
pursuing subversives is not a valid excuse for the illegal seizure. For the retention of the
money seized by the police officers, approval of the court which issued the search
warrant is necessary. The purpose of the constitutional requirement that a search
warrant should particularly describe the things to be seized.—“The evident purpose and
intent of the requirement is to limit the things to be seized to those, and only those,
particularly described in the search warrant—to leave the officers of the law with no
discretion regarding what articles they should seize, to the end that unreasonable
searches and seizures may not be made and that abuses may not be committed.
PP VS. VELOSO

FACTS:

-The police of Manila had reliable information that the Parliamentary Club was nothing
more than a gambling house. Detective Andres Geronimo applied for, and obtained a
search warrant from Judge Garduño of the municipal court. 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. Veloso insisting in his refusal to submit to the
search.

-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. In the municipal
court of the City of Manila, the persons arrest in the raid were accused of gambling. All
of them were eventually acquitted in the Court of First Instance for lack of proof, with the
sole exception of Veloso, who was found guilty of maintaining a gambling house.

-The defense, contended that since the name of Veloso did not appear in the search
warrant, but instead John Doe was used, Veloso had a legal right to resist the police by
force.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE SEARCH WARRANT AND ARREST WAS VALID

HELD:

YES. The warrant for the apprehension of an unnamed party is void, "except in those
cases where it contains a “descriptio personae” such as will enable the officer to identify
the accused." The description is sufficient and indicates clearly the proper person upon
whom the warrant is to be served. The affidavit and the search warrant stated that "John
Doe has illegally in his possession in the building occupied by him, and which is under
his control, namely, in the building numbered 124 Calle Arzobispo, City of Manila,
Philippine Islands, certain devices and effects used in violation of the Gambling Law.
The police could identify John Doe as Jose M.a Veloso without difficulty.
YOUSEF VS. CA

FACTS:

On April 1, 1995, the police searched Apartment No. 8, in the same compound and
found ammunitions and explosives. Petitioners were charged before the Regional Trial
Court of Kalookan City accusing them with illegal possession of firearms, ammunitions
and explosives. Thereafter, petitioners were arrested and detained. Petitioners contend
that the search and seizure orders violated Sections 2 and 3 of the Bill of Rights as well
as Section 3 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court on Criminal Procedure because the place
searched and articles seized were not described with particularity. They argue that the
two-witness requirement under Section 10 of Rule 126 was ignored when only one
witness signed the receipt for the properties seized during the search, and said witness
was not presented at the trial.

ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE ITEMS DESCRIBED IN THE WARRANT WERE

SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBED WITH PARTICULARITY

HELD:

YES. The nature of the items ordered to be seized did not require a technical
description. Moreover, 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 doubt on the part of the
searching authorities, otherwise, it would be virtually impossible for the applicants to
obtain a search warrant as they would not know exactly what kind of things they are
looking for.

The case of Bache and Co. 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.