This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-01-13 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Clearly then, an application for a search warrant is not a criminal action. Meanwhile, we have consistently recognized the right of parties to question orders quashing those warrants.[37] Accordingly, we sustain the CA's ruling that the conformity of the public prosecutor is not necessary before an aggrieved party moves for reconsideration of an order granting a motion to quash search warrants. | |||||
|
2000-05-11 |
BELLOSILLO, J. |
||||
| Petitioners next allege that the application for a search warrant should have been dismissed outright since it was not accompanied by a certification of non-forum shopping, citing as authority therefor Washington Distillers, Inc. v. Court of Appeals.[16] In that case, we sustained the quashal of the search warrant because the applicant had been guilty of forum shopping as private respondent sought a search warrant from the Manila Regional Trial Court only after he was denied by the courts of Pampanga. The instant case differs significantly, for here there is no allegation of forum-shopping, only failure to acquire a certification against forum-shopping. The Rules of Court as amended requires such certification only from initiatory pleadings, omitting any mention of "applications."[17] In contrast, Supreme Court Circular 04-94, the old rule on the matter, required such certification even from "applications." Our ruling in Washington Distillers required no such certification from applications for search warrants. Hence, the absence of such certification will not result in the dismissal of an application for search warrant. | |||||