Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 961 views

    People V Pastrana and Abad Digest

    Uploaded by

    Pam Babas
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that search warrant no. 01-118 was null and void. The search warrant was issued in connection with multiple alleged offenses of estafa and securities violations based on accusations that the respondents defrauded foreign investors in a stock scheme. However, the Court found the search warrant violated the requirement to be issued for a single specific offense only. Additionally, the applicant did not provide sufficient proof of the securities violation offense. As the primary purpose of a search warrant is to obtain evidence for a specific prosecution, this warrant lacked specificity and particularity as required. Therefore, the Court affirmed lower court rulings denying its validity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    People V Pastrana and Abad Digest

    Uploaded by

    Pam Babas
    961 views1 page
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that search warrant no. 01-118 was null and void. The search warrant was issued in connection with multiple alleged offenses of estafa and securities violations based on accusations that the respondents defrauded foreign investors in a stock scheme. However, the Court found the search warrant violated the requirement to be issued for a single specific offense only. Additionally, the applicant did not provide sufficient proof of the securities violation offense. As the primary purpose of a search warrant is to obtain evidence for a specific prosecution, this warrant lacked specificity and particularity as required. Therefore, the Court affirmed lower court rulings denying its validity.

    Original Title

    People v Pastrana and Abad digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that search warrant no. 01-118 was null and void. The search warrant was issued in connection with multiple alleged offenses of estafa and securities violations based on accusations that the respondents defrauded foreign investors in a stock scheme. However, the Court found the search warrant violated the requirement to be issued for a single specific offense only. Additionally, the applicant did not provide sufficient proof of the securities violation offense. As the primary purpose of a search warrant is to obtain evidence for a specific prosecution, this warrant lacked specificity and particularity as required. Therefore, the Court affirmed lower court rulings denying its validity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    961 views1 page

    People V Pastrana and Abad Digest

    Uploaded by

    Pam Babas
    The Supreme Court of the Philippines ruled that search warrant no. 01-118 was null and void. The search warrant was issued in connection with multiple alleged offenses of estafa and securities violations based on accusations that the respondents defrauded foreign investors in a stock scheme. However, the Court found the search warrant violated the requirement to be issued for a single specific offense only. Additionally, the applicant did not provide sufficient proof of the securities violation offense. As the primary purpose of a search warrant is to obtain evidence for a specific prosecution, this warrant lacked specificity and particularity as required. Therefore, the Court affirmed lower court rulings denying its validity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    People of the Philippines v Pastrana and Abad

    G.R No. 196045 | February 21, 2018

    Facts:

    On 26 March 2001, National Bureau of Investigation (​NBI​) Special Investigator Albert Froilan Gaerlan (​SI
    Gaerlan​) filed a Sworn Application for a Search Warrant​ ​before the RTC, Makati City, Branch 63, for the
    purpose of conducting a search of the office premises of respondents Amador Pastrana and Rufina Abad
    at Room 1908, 88 Corporate Center, Valero Street, Makati City. SI Gaerlan alleged that he received
    confidential information that respondents were engaged in a scheme to defraud foreign investors. Some
    of their employees would call prospective clients abroad whom they would convince to invest in a
    foreign-based company by purchasing shares of stocks. Those who agreed to buy stocks were instructed
    to make a transfer for the payment thereof. No shares of stock, however, were actually purchased.
    Instead, the money collected was allocated as follows: 42% to respondent Pastrana's personal account;
    32% to the sales office; 7% to investors-clients, who threatened respondents with lawsuits; 10% to the
    cost of sales; and 8% to marketing. Special Investigator Gaerlan averred that the scheme not only
    constituted ​estafa​ under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code (​RPC​), but also a violation of Republic Act
    (​R.A.​) No. 8799 or the Securities Regulation Code (​SRC​).

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the search warrant no. 01-118 is null and void

    Held:

    Yes. The Court held that the search warrant no. 01-118 is null and void because it violates the
    requirement that a search warrant must be issued in connection with one specific offense only. It
    reinforces the constitutional requirement that a search warrant should issue only on the basis of
    probable cause. Since the primary objective of applying for a search warrant is to obtain evidence
    to be used in a subsequent prosecution for an offense for which the search warrant was applied, a
    judge issuing a particular warrant must satisfy himself that the evidence presented by the applicant
    establishes the facts and circumstances relating to this specific offense for which the warrant is
    sought and issued. Here, the applicant for the search warrant did not present proof that
    respondents lacked the license to operate as brokers or dealers. Such circumstance only
    reinforces the view that at the time of the application, the NBI and the SEC were in a quandary as
    to what offense to charge respondents with. Search Warrant No. 01-118 is null and void for having
    been issued for more than one offense and for lack of particularity in the description of the things
    sought for seizure.

    WHEREFORE​, the petition is ​DENIED​. The 22 September 2010 Decision and 11 March 2011
    Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 77703 are ​AFFIRMED​.

    You might also like