Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 244 views

    People v. Mamaril

    Uploaded by

    Vian O.
    The Supreme Court ruled that the search warrant issued against Appellant Benhur Mamaril was illegal. [1] The clerk of court could not produce the written depositions of the complainant and witnesses taken by the judge prior to issuing the search warrant, as required by law. [2] Mere affidavits are not sufficient to determine probable cause for a search warrant. [3] Without the written depositions attached to the record, the search warrant was invalid, rendering the evidence obtained from the search inadmissible.

    Copyright:

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

    People v. Mamaril

    Uploaded by

    Vian O.
    244 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the search warrant issued against Appellant Benhur Mamaril was illegal. [1] The clerk of court could not produce the written depositions of the complainant and witnesses taken by the judge prior to issuing the search warrant, as required by law. [2] Mere affidavits are not sufficient to determine probable cause for a search warrant. [3] Without the written depositions attached to the record, the search warrant was invalid, rendering the evidence obtained from the search inadmissible.

    Original Description:

    crimpro

    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 Supreme Court ruled that the search warrant issued against Appellant Benhur Mamaril was illegal. [1] The clerk of court could not produce the written depositions of the complainant and witnesses taken by the judge prior to issuing the search warrant, as required by law. [2] Mere affidavits are not sufficient to determine probable cause for a search warrant. [3] Without the written depositions attached to the record, the search warrant was invalid, rendering the evidence obtained from the search inadmissible.

    Copyright:

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

    People v. Mamaril

    Uploaded by

    Vian O.
    The Supreme Court ruled that the search warrant issued against Appellant Benhur Mamaril was illegal. [1] The clerk of court could not produce the written depositions of the complainant and witnesses taken by the judge prior to issuing the search warrant, as required by law. [2] Mere affidavits are not sufficient to determine probable cause for a search warrant. [3] Without the written depositions attached to the record, the search warrant was invalid, rendering the evidence obtained from the search inadmissible.

    Copyright:

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

    PEOPLE V.

    MAMARIL

    420 SCRA 662 (2004)

    FACTS:

    Appellant Benhur Mamaril was charged with violation of R.A. 7659, or the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972
    for keeping and possessing crushed marijuana leaves contained in 78 sachets with a total weight of
    236.83 grams and 2 bricks of marijuana fruiting tops weighing 1600 grams.

    After the prosecution formally offered its evidence, the defense filed a motion with memorandum
    contending that: (1) the exhibits of the prosecution are inadmissible in evidence under Section 2 and
    Section 3 (2) of Article III (Bill of Rights) of the 1987 Constitution as the search warrant, by virtue of
    which said exhibits were seized, was illegally issued, considering that the judge’s examination of the
    complainant and his two witnesses was not in writing; and (2) said search warrant was illegally or
    improperly implemented.

    The defense presented as witness Atty. Enrico O. Castillo, Branch Clerk of Court, RTC-Branch 39,
    Lingayen, Pangasinan. Atty. Castillo testified that he only had with him the application for search
    warrant, the supporting affidavits of PO3 Alberto Santiago and Diosdado Fernandez and the return of
    the search warrant. The transcript of stenographic notes containing the searching questions and
    answers made by Executive Judge Eugenio G. Ramos in connection with the application for Search
    Warrant No. 99-51 was nowhere to be found.

    RTC found appellant guilty. Appellant then elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

    ISSUE:
    Whether the search warrant was illegally issued as the deposition of witnesses was not reduced into
    writing and attached to the records of the case

    RULING:
    Yes. Atty. Enrico O. Castillo, Branch Clerk of Court, RTC-Branch 39 of Lingayen, Pangasinan, who was
    requested to testify on the available records kept in their office regarding Search Warrant No. 99-51,
    presented before the court only the application for search warrant and the supporting affidavits of PO3
    Alberto Santiago and Diosdado Fernandez. Atty. Castillo could not produce the sworn statements of the
    complainant and his witnesses showing that the judge examined them in the form of searching
    questions and answers in writing as required by law.

    Based on the testimony and the other evidence on record, the prosecution failed to prove that
    Executive Judge Eugenio G. Ramos put into writing his examination of the applicant and his witnesses
    in the form of searching questions and answers before issuance of the search warrant. The records
    only show the existence of an application for a search warrant and the affidavits of the complainant’s
    witnesses. In Mata v. Bayona, we held:

    Mere affidavits of the complainant and his witnesses are thus not sufficient. The examining Judge has
    to take depositions in writing of the complainant and the witnesses he may produce and to attach
    them to the record. Such written deposition is necessary in order that the Judge may be able to properly
    determine the existence or non-existence of the probable cause, to hold liable for perjury the person
    giving it if it will be found later that his declarations are false.
    We, therefore, hold that the search warrant is tainted with illegality by the failure of the Judge to
    conform with the essential requisites of taking the depositions in writing and attaching them to the
    record, rendering the search warrant invalid.

    You might also like