Case Title: People of the Philippines vs. Veloso, G.R. No. 23051, October 20, 1925.

Topic: John Doe warrants

Doctrine:
● John Doe search warrants should be the exception and not the rule. The police
should particularly describe the place to be searched and the person or things to
be seized, wherever and whenever it is feasible.
● The description must be sufficient to indicate clearly the proper person upon
whom the warrant is to be served
● The rule or principle (expressing the name of the person to be searched and
place to be searched) does not prevent the issue and service of a warrant
against a party whose name is unknown. In such case the best description
possible of the person to be arrested is to be given in the warrant; but it must be
sufficient to indicate clearly on whom it is to be served, by stating his occupation,
his personal appearance and peculiarities, the place of his residence, or other
circumstances by which he can be identified.

Facts:
The police of Manila had a reliable information that the so-called Parliamentary
Club, which is located in No. 124 Calle Arzobispo, City of Manila, which was also
managed by Jose Ma. Veloso, also a Member of House of Representative, was nothing
more than a gambling house. Such information was verified by the chief of the gambling
squad when they had been to the said club.

A search warrant was obtained from Judge Garduno of municipal court. The
police attempted to raid the Parliamentary Club. 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, nearly 50 persons were apprehended, and one of them is Veloso.
Townsend showed the warrant to Veloso, upon reading, Veloso argued 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, and he asked
the latter to show the evidence of the game as his pocket was bulging. Five minutes
passed but Veloso refused to obey the order of Townsend. When the patience of the
officer was exhausted, policeman Rosacker took hold of Veloso only to meet with his
resistance, and Veloso bit his 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, except Veloso, who was found guilty of maintaining a gambling house.
This case reached the appellate court where the accused was finally sentenced to pay a
fine of P500.

Counsel for appellant attacked the validity of search warrant contending that
since the name of Veloso did not appear in the search warrant, but instead the
pseudonym John Doe was used, Veloso had a legal right to resist the police by force.

Issue: Whether or not the search warrant against Veloso is valid, though his name does
not appear, but instead the pseudonym John Doe was used in the said warrant.

HELD: Yes. The Court first discussed the general rule for a warrant to be valid.
According to the Supreme Court, citing different jurisprudence, the rule or principle
(expressing the name of the person to be searched and place to be searched) does not
prevent the issue and service of a warrant against a party whose name is unknown. In
such case the best description possible of the person to be arrested is to be given in the
warrant; but it must be sufficient to indicate clearly on whom it is to be served, by
stating his occupation, his personal appearance and peculiarities, the place of his
residence, or other circumstances by which he can be identified.

Now, applying in the case at bar, 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. It is the prevailing rule that a description
of a place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with
reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended. The police officers
were accordingly authorized to break down the door and enter the premises of the
building occupied by the so-called Parliamentary Club. When inside, they then had the
right to arrest the persons presumably engaged in a prohibited game, and to confiscate
the evidence of the commission of the crime. It has been held that an officer making an
arrest may take from the person arrested any money or property found upon his person,
which was used in the commission of the crime or was the fruit of the crime, or which
may furnish the person arrested with the means of committing violence or of escaping,
or which may be used as evidence on the trial of the cause, but not otherwise.
Proceeding along a different line of approach, it is undeniable that the application for the
search warrant, the affidavit, and the search warrant failed to name Jose Ma. Veloso as
the person to be seized. But the affidavit and the search warrant did state 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."
Now, in this connection, it must not be forgotten that the Organic Act requires a
particular description of the place to be searched, and the person or things to be
seized, and that the warrant in this case sufficiently described the place and the
gambling apparatus, and, in addition, contained a description of the person to be
seized. Under the authorities cited by the appellant, it is invariably recognized that the
warrant for the apprehension of an unnamed party is void, "except in those cases
where it contains a description personae such as will enable the officer to identify
the accused." The description must be sufficient to indicate clearly the proper
person upon whom the warrant is to be served. 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.

The trial judge deduced from the searched warrant that the accused Veloso was
sufficiently identified therein. Mention was made by his Honor of the code provision
relating to a complaint or information, permitting a fictitious name to be inserted in the
complaint or information, in lieu of the true name. The Attorney-General adds to this the
argument that the police were authorized to arrest without a warrant since a crime was
being committed.

John Doe search warrants should be the exception and not the rule. The police
should particularly describe the place to be searched and the person or things to
be seized, wherever and whenever it is feasible. The police should not be hindered
in the performance of their duties, which are difficult enough of performance under the
best of conditions, by superficial adherence to technicality or far fetched judicial
interference.

Finding present no reversible error, agreeing in all respects with the findings of facts as
made by the trial judge, and concurring with the trial judge in his legal conclusion, with
one exception, it results that the judgment appealed from must be, as it is hereby,
affirmed, with the sole modification that the defendant and appellant shall be sentenced
to two months and one day imprisonment, arresto mayor, with the costs of this instance
against him. Let the corresponding order to carry this judgment into effect issue.