This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2008-04-30 |
TINGA, J, |
||||
| Likewise, Esternon's failure to deliver the seized items to the court demonstrates a departure from the directive in the search warrant that the items seized be immediately delivered to the trial court with a true and verified inventory of the same,[45] as required by Rule 126, Section 12[46] of the Rules of Court. People v. Go[47] characterized this requirement as mandatory in order to preclude the substitution of or tampering with said items by interested parties.[48] Thus, as a reasonable safeguard, People vs. Del Castillo[49] declared that the approval by the court which issued the search warrant is necessary before police officers can retain the property seized and without it, they would have no authority to retain possession thereof and more so to deliver the same to another agency.[50] Mere tolerance by the trial court of a contrary practice does not make the practice right because it is violative of the mandatory requirements of the law and it thereby defeats the very purpose for the enactment.[51] | |||||
|
2007-02-15 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| The officer, if refused admittance to the place of directed search after giving notice of his purpose and authority, may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house or any part of a house or anything therein to execute the warrant or liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained therein. (Underscoring supplied) The RTC's finding that the two-witness rule governing the execution of search warrant was not complied with, which rule is mandatory to ensure regularity in the execution of the search warrant,[28] is in order, however. | |||||
|
2002-07-18 |
QUISUMBING, J. |
||||
| Cited in this regard is the case of People vs. Gesmundo,[35] which stated that the officer seizing the property under the warrant must give a detailed receipt to the lawful occupant of the premises in whose presence the search and seizure was | |||||