This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-09-02 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| A long-standing rule is that a description of the place to be searched is sufficient if the officer with the warrant can, with reasonable effort, ascertain and identify the place intended and distinguish it from other places in the community. Any designation or description known to the locality that points out the place to the exclusion of all others, and on inquiry leads the officers unerringly to it, satisfies the constitutional requirement.[6] Taking from American Jurisprudence, "[t]he determining factor as to whether a search warrant describes the premises to be searched with sufficient particularity is not whether the description is sufficient to enable the officer to locate and identify the premises with reasonable effort."[7] | |||||
|
2010-12-15 |
VELASCO JR., J. |
||||
| As petitioners strongly argue, even if the branded LPG cylinders were indeed owned by customers, such fact does not authorize Omni to refill these branded LPG cylinders without written authorization from the brand owners Pilipinas Shell, Petron and Total. In Yao, Sr. v. People,[57] a case involving criminal infringement of property rights under Sec. 155 of RA 8293,[58] in affirming the courts a quo's determination of the presence of probable cause, this Court held that from Sec. 155.1[59] of RA 8293 can be gleaned that "mere unauthorized use of a container bearing a registered trademark in connection with the sale, distribution or advertising of goods or services which is likely to cause confusion, mistake or deception among the buyers/consumers can be considered as trademark infringement."[60] The Court affirmed the presence of infringement involving the unauthorized sale of Gasul and Shellane LPG cylinders and the unauthorized refilling of the same by Masagana Gas Corporation as duly attested to and witnessed by NBI agents who conducted the surveillance and test-buys. | |||||