This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2004-09-13 |
CARPIO, J. |
||||
| Still, no provision of law exists which requires that a warrant, partially defective in specifying some items sought to be seized yet particular with respect to the other items, should be nullified as a whole. A partially defective warrant remains valid as to the items specifically described in the warrant.[44] A search warrant is severable, the items not sufficiently described may be cut off without destroying the whole warrant.[45] The exclusionary rule found in Section 3(2) of Article III of the Constitution renders inadmissible in any proceeding all evidence obtained through unreasonable searches and seizure. Thus, all items seized under paragraph (c) of the search warrants, not falling under paragraphs a, b, d, e or f, should be returned to Maxicorp. | |||||
|
2002-02-12 |
BUENA, J. |
||||
| It appears that the police officers' justification for the seizure of the prohibited drugs was rooted from the fact that the intrusion and search was pursuant to accused-appellant's lawful arrest after selling marijuana to a member of the buy-bust team. A search incident to a lawful arrest is limited to the person of one arrested and the premises within his immediate control. [15] | |||||
|
2002-02-12 |
BUENA, J. |
||||
| "A: Those are the markings of SPO2 Nestor Serona. "Q: What was his participation? "A: He was the investigator."[18] In the recent case of People vs. Salanguit,[19] we declared inadmissible the marijuana recovered that was wrapped in newsprint. We likewise reiterated our previous decision that rendered inadmissible the marijuana seized by the NARCOM agents because the said drugs were contained in a plastic bag which gave no indication of its contents. As explained by this Court- | |||||