This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2015-08-05 |
BERSAMIN, J. |
||||
| We may agree with the petitioner that the application for the search warrant was not a criminal action; and that the application for the search warrant was not of the same form as that of a criminal action. Verily, the search warrant is not similar to a criminal action but is rather a legal process that may be likened to a writ of discovery employed by no less than the State to procure relevant evidence of a crime. In that respect, it is an instrument or tool, issued under the State's police power, and this is the reason why it must issue in the name of the People of the Philippines.[19] | |||||
|
2009-10-16 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| The general rule is that a party is mandated to follow the hierarchy of courts. However, in exceptional cases, the Court, for compelling reasons or if warranted by the nature of the issues raised, may take cognizance of petitions filed directly before it.[22] In this case, the Court opts to take cognizance of the petition, as it involves the application of the rules promulgated by this Court in the exercise of its rule-making power under the Constitution.[23] | |||||
|
2007-02-15 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| (a) . . . when it released the seized properties by virtue of the filing of a bond by the respondent.[24] The issue of whether a private complainant, like SCEI, has the right to participate in search warrant proceedings was addressed in the affirmative in United Laboratories, Inc. v. Isip:[25] | |||||