Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 43 views

    PICOP V Judge Asuncion

    Uploaded by

    Jean Mary
    The Supreme Court ruled the search warrant issued against PICOP was invalid for the following reasons: 1) The trial court failed to personally examine the complainant and witnesses seeking the warrant, as required. 2) The police officer who appeared during the warrant's issuance had no personal knowledge that PICOP lacked licenses for the firearms in question. 3) The place to be searched, PICOP's compound, was not described with sufficient particularity in the warrant.

    Copyright:

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

    PICOP V Judge Asuncion

    Uploaded by

    Jean Mary
    43 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled the search warrant issued against PICOP was invalid for the following reasons: 1) The trial court failed to personally examine the complainant and witnesses seeking the warrant, as required. 2) The police officer who appeared during the warrant's issuance had no personal knowledge that PICOP lacked licenses for the firearms in question. 3) The place to be searched, PICOP's compound, was not described with sufficient particularity in the warrant.

    Original Title

    PICOP v Judge Asuncion

    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 the search warrant issued against PICOP was invalid for the following reasons: 1) The trial court failed to personally examine the complainant and witnesses seeking the warrant, as required. 2) The police officer who appeared during the warrant's issuance had no personal knowledge that PICOP lacked licenses for the firearms in question. 3) The place to be searched, PICOP's compound, was not described with sufficient particularity in the warrant.

    Copyright:

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

    PICOP V Judge Asuncion

    Uploaded by

    Jean Mary
    The Supreme Court ruled the search warrant issued against PICOP was invalid for the following reasons: 1) The trial court failed to personally examine the complainant and witnesses seeking the warrant, as required. 2) The police officer who appeared during the warrant's issuance had no personal knowledge that PICOP lacked licenses for the firearms in question. 3) The place to be searched, PICOP's compound, was not described with sufficient particularity in the warrant.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    PICOP v.

    Asuncion Case Digest
    PICOP v. Asuncion, 307 SCRA 253) (1999)
    FACTS:  On January 25, 1995, Police Chief Inspector Napoleon B. Pascua applied for a search
    warrant before the RTC of Quezon City, stating: 1. That the management of Paper Industries
    Corporation of the Philippines, located at PICOP compound, is in possession or ha[s] in [its] control
    high powered firearms, ammunitions, explosives, which are the subject of the offense, or used or
    intended to be used in committing the offense, and which . . . are [being kept] and conceal[ed] in the
    premises described; 2. That a Search Warrant should be issued to enable any agent of the law to
    take possession and bring to the described properties. After propounding several questions to
    Bacolod, Judge Maximiano C. Asuncion issued the contested search warrant. On February 4, 1995,
    the police enforced the search warrant at the PICOP compound and seized a number of firearms
    and explosives. Believing that the warrant was invalid and the search unreasonable, the petitioners
    filed a “Motion to Quash” before the trial court. Subsequently, they also filed a “Supplemental
    Pleading to the Motion to Quash” and a “Motion to SuppressEvidence.” On March 23, 1995, the RTC
    issued the first contested Order which denied petitioners’ motions. On August 3, 1995, the trial court
    rendered its second contested Order denying petitioners’ Motion for Reconsideration.
    ISSUE: WON the search warrant issued was valid
    HELD:
    The requisites of a valid search warrant are:  (1) probable cause is present; (2) such presence is
    determined personally by the judge; (3) the complainant and the witnesses he or she may produce
    are personally examined by the judge, in writing and under oath or affirmation; (4) the applicant and
    the witnesses testify on facts personally known to them; and (5) the warrant specifically describes
    the place to be searched and the things to be seized.  In the present case, the search warrant is
    invalid because (1) the trial court failed to examine personally the complainant and the other
    deponents; (2) SPO3 Cicero Bacolod, who appeared during the hearing for the issuance of the
    search warrant, had no personal knowledge that petitioners were not licensed to possess the subject
    firearms; and (3) the place to be searched was not described with particularity.

    You might also like