Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Facts: PO3 Alcoser applied for the issuance of a warrant to search the person and
residence of petitioner Bernard Nala who was referred to in the application as
Romulo Nala alias long of Purok 4, Poblacion , Bukidnon. The application was filed in
connection with petitioners alleged illegal possession of one . 22 caliber magnum , .
38 caliber . 5 amunitions, 1 grenade and one 9 mm pistol in violation of illegal
possession of firearms.
The following day, criminal case was filed against petitioner for illegal possession of
firearms. Petitioner filed motion to quash the search and seizure warrant and direct
the objects seized inadmissible for any purpose.
RTC: Denied the quashal. However, the air rifle was returned.
Issues:
1. Whether petitioner sufficiently described in the search warrant?
2. Was there probable cause for the issuance of the warrant against petitioner??
3. Whether the items seized from petitioners residence are admissible in
evidence against him though said firearms were not listed in the search and
seizure warrant?
Held:
1. YES. The failure to correctly state in the search warrant the first name of
petitioner which is Bernard and not Romulo , does not invalidate the warrant
because the additional description alias Lolong Nala of Purok 4 , Poblacion,
Bukidnon sufficiently enabled the police officers to locate and identify the
petitioner. What is prohibited is a warrant against unnamed party and not one
which as in the instant case, contains descriptio personae that will enable the
officer to identify the accused without difficulty.
2. NO. Police officer failed to alleged in the affidavit and its testimony for the
issuance of the search warrant that petitioner had no license to possess
firearms. While Alcoser testified before the judge that the firearms in the
possession of the petitioner are not licensed , this does not qualify as
personal knowledge but only personal belief because neither he nor Nalagon
verified , much more secured, a certification from appropriate government
agency that the petitioner was not licensed to possess a firearm. This could
have been the best evidence obtainable to prove that petitioner had no
license to possess firearms and ammunitions, but the police officers failed to
present the same. Likewise, it did not even occur to examining judge to
clarify how did the police officers conduct an on the spot surveillance.
3. NO. The seized items cannot be used as evidence against petitioner because
access therein was gained by police officer using void search and seizure
warrant. It is as if they entered petitioners house without a warrant, making
their entry therein illegal and the items seized, inadmissible.