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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 19 views

    People VS Estrada

    Uploaded by

    Lloyd David P. Vicedo
    The document summarizes a court case from the Supreme Court of the Philippines regarding a search warrant. It describes that the Bureau of Food and Drugs filed for a search warrant against Aiden Lanuza for a violation of consumer laws. However, the application for the warrant described searching a different person and location. When the warrant was executed, the premises consisted of 15 structures occupied by different people. Lanuza challenged the warrant as illegal since it was enforced on the wrong location. The court ruled the warrant violated constitutional requirements by not describing the specific place to be searched with sufficient particularity.

    Copyright:

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

    People VS Estrada

    Uploaded by

    Lloyd David P. Vicedo
    19 views2 pages
    The document summarizes a court case from the Supreme Court of the Philippines regarding a search warrant. It describes that the Bureau of Food and Drugs filed for a search warrant against Aiden Lanuza for a violation of consumer laws. However, the application for the warrant described searching a different person and location. When the warrant was executed, the premises consisted of 15 structures occupied by different people. Lanuza challenged the warrant as illegal since it was enforced on the wrong location. The court ruled the warrant violated constitutional requirements by not describing the specific place to be searched with sufficient particularity.

    Original Description:

    Consti digest

    Original Title

    401. PEOPLE VS ESTRADA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a court case from the Supreme Court of the Philippines regarding a search warrant. It describes that the Bureau of Food and Drugs filed for a search warrant against Aiden Lanuza for a violation of consumer laws. However, the application for the warrant described searching a different person and location. When the warrant was executed, the premises consisted of 15 structures occupied by different people. Lanuza challenged the warrant as illegal since it was enforced on the wrong location. The court ruled the warrant violated constitutional requirements by not describing the specific place to be searched with sufficient particularity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    19 views2 pages

    People VS Estrada

    Uploaded by

    Lloyd David P. Vicedo
    The document summarizes a court case from the Supreme Court of the Philippines regarding a search warrant. It describes that the Bureau of Food and Drugs filed for a search warrant against Aiden Lanuza for a violation of consumer laws. However, the application for the warrant described searching a different person and location. When the warrant was executed, the premises consisted of 15 structures occupied by different people. Lanuza challenged the warrant as illegal since it was enforced on the wrong location. The court ruled the warrant violated constitutional requirements by not describing the specific place to be searched with sufficient particularity.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    401. People vs.

    Estrada 296 SCRA 383 (1998) FACTS:

    On June 27, 1995, Atty. Lorna Frances F. Cabanlas, Chief of the Legal,
    Information and Compliance Division (LICD) of the Bureau of Food and Drugs
    (BFAD), filed with the Regional
    Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 83, an application for the issuance of a search
    warrant against Aiden Lanuza of 516 San Jose de la Montana Street, Mabolo,
    Cebu City, for violation of Article 40 (k) of Republic Act 7394 (The Consumer Act
    of the Philippines).
    The application, however, ended with the statement that the warrant is to search
    the premises of another person at a different address.
    The BFAD also submitted with the application a copy of the sketch of the location
    of Aiden Lanuzas residence at her stated address.
    The present petition, however, narrates a different account of what actually
    happened during the implementation of the search warrant. Paragraph 5 of the
    petition states: At the commencement of the search, the members of the team
    discovered that the premises described as 516 San Jose de la Montana St.,
    Mabolo, Cebu City was actually a five thousand (5,000) square meter compound
    containing at least fifteen (15) structures which are either leased residences,
    offices, factories, workshops or warehouse.
    On August 22, 1995, private respondent Aiden Lanuza filed a verified motion.
    The motion is based on the grounds that the search warrant is illegal and null
    and void because its implementation was unreasonable as it was enforced on a
    different or wrong place which was lawfully occupied by a different or wrong
    person.
    Accordingly, the order dated July 3, 1995 was revoked and all the articles seized
    were declared inadmissible in any and all proceedings against private respondent
    Aiden Lanuza.
    Petitioner's filed a motion for reconsideration.
    Respondent Aiden Lanuza later filed her comment18 on the petition, but
    petitioner's reply thereto was not admitted by this Court in a resolution19 dated
    January 13, 1997, for failure by the Solicitor General to file the same within his
    first extension of thirty (30) days, that was granted, but with a warning that no
    further extension would be given.

    ISSUE: WON, the application of search warrant was violatative of the


    constitutional requirement. (Yes)
    RULING:
    The description of the place to be searched is too general and does not pinpoint
    the specific house of private respondent. Thus, the inadequacy of the description
    of the residence of private respondent sought to be searched has characterized
    the questioned search warrant as a general warrant, which is violative of the
    constitutional requirement.
    The place sought to be searched had not been described with sufficient
    particularity in the questioned search warrant, considering that private
    respondent Aiden Lanuza's residence is actually located at Lot No. 41, 516 San
    Jose de la Montana St., Mabolo, Cebu City, while the drugs sought to be seized
    were found in a warehouse at LotNo. 38 within the same compound. The said
    warehouse is owned by a different person.
    Hence, the petition is hereby DENIED. The Temporary Restraining Order issued
    in a resolution dated June 26, 1996 is hereby LIFTED.

    You might also like