-Search Warrant Article-

[Call me bubba]

it would a rare occurance that we would ever be served w/a "Search Warrant"

or even knowing what details a Philippine search warrant.

I found an article by DEAR PAO that provides what entails the Search warrant.

:541: this is FYI :541:

Dear PAO,

What is essential before a search warrant can be issued? If a search warrant has been issued, can it be effected in a place that is not indicated in the warrant?

Joey

Dear Joey,

Before a valid search warrant is issued, the following requisites must first be satisfied:

(1) there is probable cause;

(2) such probable cause must be determined personally by the judge;

(3) the judge must examine, in writing and under oath or affirmation, the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce;

(4) the applicant of such warrant and his witnesses testify on the facts personally known to them; and

(5) the warrant specifically describes the place to be searched and the things to be seized. This is in consonance with Section 2, Article 3 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution.

If a search was done in the absence of any of the aforementioned requisites,

the same may be questioned by the person against whom the said warrant is being enforced for being a violation of his constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

In addition thereto, any object or thing taken by reason of the said search may not be used as evidence against him for it is considered as a fruit of a poisonous tree.

Accordingly, a search warrant may not be implemented in a place other than that which is particularly indicated therein. It is worth emphasizing that the search must only be done in the place specifically described in the warrant in order for such search to be considered legal and constitutional.

In one case, the Supreme Court acquitted the defendant on account that there was reasonable doubt as to his guilt because the evidence used against him during trial, to wit,

several articles including four plastic packs containing white crystalline substance,

were found in a place not indicated in the search warrant.

The Court ruled that, “x x x The confiscated items, having been found in a place other than the one described in the search warrant, can be considered as fruits of an invalid warrantless search,

the presentation of which as an evidence is a violation of petitioner’s constitutional guaranty against unreasonable searches and seizure. x x x” (Ruben Castillo @ Boy Castillo vs. People of the Philippines, G. R. No. 185128, January 30, 2012)

http://www.manilatimes.net/index.php/dear-pao/33068-search-warrant-specifically-describes-place-to-be-searched-things-to-be-seized

[Mike S]

If a search was done in the absence of any of the aforementioned requisites, the same may be questioned by the person against whom the said warrant is being enforced for being a violation of his constitutional right against unreasonable searches and seizures.

First off this is good information and I wish it were true for us and it does IF you are a Filipino ...... however as we are not citizens we do not as far as I know have any constitutional rights under Philippine law being as we are foreigners ...... and as such would not be treated under the same privileges as Filipino citizens ..... IMHO ..... unlike in many countries we have no rights to speak of except maybe to leave the country and after 6 months of living here we need permission to do that ...... we must live by and obey ALL the laws and regulations but as far as being protected by them it is totally up to the authority having jurisdiction over the issue ..... I can never see any foreigner getting to go to the supreme court here with any case ..... I'm not sure it has ever happened ...... at least I have never heard of a case ...... again ..... IMHO ...... :cheersty:

[Call me bubba]

I can never see any foreigner getting to go to the supreme court here with any case ..... I'm not sure it has ever happened ...... at least I have never heard of a case ...... again ..... IMHO ...... :cheersty:

its been awhile ,i have read of a case that ocurred in the 1990's.

the man was convicted of a serious crime involving the death and sexual assault of a child,

the charge had said the child was under 12yo . the SC came back and said since no birth certificate was given/proved that this child was this age, his conviction or at least part of it was "overturned"