The case originated from an ambush in Lanao where the victim survived but could not identify any of the around 50 attackers. A warrant was issued for the arrest of all 50 "John Does". The petitioners argued this violated due process as the judge did not follow proper investigation procedures and the warrant did not sufficiently identify the individuals to be arrested. The court held the warrant was invalid and violated the constitution as it did not particularly describe the persons to be seized. The judge was ordered to forward the case to the provincial fiscal for further action.
The case originated from an ambush in Lanao where the victim survived but could not identify any of the around 50 attackers. A warrant was issued for the arrest of all 50 "John Does". The petitioners argued this violated due process as the judge did not follow proper investigation procedures and the warrant did not sufficiently identify the individuals to be arrested. The court held the warrant was invalid and violated the constitution as it did not particularly describe the persons to be seized. The judge was ordered to forward the case to the provincial fiscal for further action.
The case originated from an ambush in Lanao where the victim survived but could not identify any of the around 50 attackers. A warrant was issued for the arrest of all 50 "John Does". The petitioners argued this violated due process as the judge did not follow proper investigation procedures and the warrant did not sufficiently identify the individuals to be arrested. The court held the warrant was invalid and violated the constitution as it did not particularly describe the persons to be seized. The judge was ordered to forward the case to the provincial fiscal for further action.
The case originated from an ambush in Lanao where the victim survived but could not identify any of the around 50 attackers. A warrant was issued for the arrest of all 50 "John Does". The petitioners argued this violated due process as the judge did not follow proper investigation procedures and the warrant did not sufficiently identify the individuals to be arrested. The court held the warrant was invalid and violated the constitution as it did not particularly describe the persons to be seized. The judge was ordered to forward the case to the provincial fiscal for further action.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
484. Pangandaman vs.
Casar, 159 SCRA 599 (1988)
FACTS: The case originated in Lanao. The offended party was ambushed in Lanao, but he survived. Based on his description, there were around 50 persons who staged the ambush from both sides of the hill. However, he could not recognize anyone of the 50. But he filed a case against all 50 ambushers, all “JOHN DOES”. The court issued a warrant of arrest against the 50 John Does. The petitioners contend that the Judge in the case at bar failed to conduct the investigation in accordance with the procedure prescribed in Section 3, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court;- that failure constituted a denial to petitioners of due process which nullified the proceedings leading to the issuance of the warrant for the petitioners' arrest that issuance of a warrant of arrest against fifty (50) "John Does" transgressed the Constitutional provision requiring that such warrants should particularly describe the persons or things to be seized. ISSUE: WON the warrant of arrest is valid? Can a court issue a warrant of arrest against an unknown accused. HELD: NO it is not valid. Said warrant is voided to the extent that it is issued against fifty (50) "John Does." The respondent Judge is directed to forward to the Provincial Fiscal of Lanao del Sur the record of the preliminary investigation of the complaint in Criminal Case No. 1728 of his court for further appropriate action.
It is of the nature of a general warrant, one of a call of writs long prescribed as
unconstitutional and once anathematized as totally subversive of the liberty of the subject. Clearly violative of the constitutional injunction that warrants of arrest should particularly describe the person or persons to be seized. The warrant as against unidentified subjects will be considered as null and void.
