Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 168 views

    Motion To Quash Warrant of Arrest

    Uploaded by

    bobbyricky
    The document is a motion to quash a search warrant filed by the accused Yayo Morales' counsel, Maria Christina E. Gaviola. The motion argues that the search warrant should be quashed for two reasons: 1) Under Rule 126, sec. 10, a search warrant is only valid for 10 days from its date of issuance, but the warrant in question was served and the search conducted a month after its issuance date. 2) The warrant was issued on August 12, 2003 but the search was not conducted until September 23, 2003, making the warrant void under the 10-day validity period prescribed by law. The motion requests that the search warrant be quashed and any objects seized under it

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Motion To Quash Warrant of Arrest

    Uploaded by

    bobbyricky
    168 views2 pages
    The document is a motion to quash a search warrant filed by the accused Yayo Morales' counsel, Maria Christina E. Gaviola. The motion argues that the search warrant should be quashed for two reasons: 1) Under Rule 126, sec. 10, a search warrant is only valid for 10 days from its date of issuance, but the warrant in question was served and the search conducted a month after its issuance date. 2) The warrant was issued on August 12, 2003 but the search was not conducted until September 23, 2003, making the warrant void under the 10-day validity period prescribed by law. The motion requests that the search warrant be quashed and any objects seized under it

    Original Title

    Motion to Quash Warrant of Arrest.doc

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document is a motion to quash a search warrant filed by the accused Yayo Morales' counsel, Maria Christina E. Gaviola. The motion argues that the search warrant should be quashed for two reasons: 1) Under Rule 126, sec. 10, a search warrant is only valid for 10 days from its date of issuance, but the warrant in question was served and the search conducted a month after its issuance date. 2) The warrant was issued on August 12, 2003 but the search was not conducted until September 23, 2003, making the warrant void under the 10-day validity period prescribed by law. The motion requests that the search warrant be quashed and any objects seized under it

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    168 views2 pages

    Motion To Quash Warrant of Arrest

    Uploaded by

    bobbyricky
    The document is a motion to quash a search warrant filed by the accused Yayo Morales' counsel, Maria Christina E. Gaviola. The motion argues that the search warrant should be quashed for two reasons: 1) Under Rule 126, sec. 10, a search warrant is only valid for 10 days from its date of issuance, but the warrant in question was served and the search conducted a month after its issuance date. 2) The warrant was issued on August 12, 2003 but the search was not conducted until September 23, 2003, making the warrant void under the 10-day validity period prescribed by law. The motion requests that the search warrant be quashed and any objects seized under it

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Maria Christina E.

    Gaviola 3B

    Republic of the Philippines


    REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
    National Capital Region
    Branch10 Quezon City

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES,

    Plaintiff,

    - versus - Criminal Case No. 00022

    For: Libel

    YAYO MORALES,

    Accused.

    x ---------------------------------------------- x

    MOTION TO QUASH SEARCH WARRANT

    The Accused, YAYO MORALES, by counsel, respectfully moves for the quashal of
    Search Warrant No. 1000 issued by this Honorable Court on and dated 12 August 2003 based
    on the following considerations:

    1. Rule 126, sec. 10 provides expressly that a search warrant shall be valid for ten (10)
    days from its date and that thereafter, it shall be void.

    2. Search Warrant No. 1122 is dated 12 August 2003. It was served on the accused on
    23 September 2003, one month from its date of issuance as certified to by the Sworn Inventory
    and Return executed by Major Alvin Tan, the leader of the searching tea. A copy is entered in
    the records. A search was made on the same day, 23 September 2003 and certain objects and
    belongings were seized and delivered to the court. Under the law, the Search Warrant is void
    and must, thus, be quashed.

    WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that Search Warrant No. 1000 be QUASHED


    and all objects seized under its purported authority be declared INADMISSIBLE under the
    exclusionary rule in Article III, section 3(2) in relation to section 2.

    Quezon City; 25 September 2003.

    Atty. MARIA CHRISTINA E. GAVIOLA

    Counsel for Accused


    REQUEST FOR AND NOTICE OF HEARING

    The Branch Clerk of Court


    Regional Trial Court
    City of Quezon, Branch 10

    Kindly submit the foregoing Motion to Quash Information for consideration and approval of the
    Honorable Court immediately upon receipt thereof and kindly schedule the same for hearing on
    27 September 2003 at 9:30 in the morning.

    MARIA CHRISTINA E. GAVIOLA

    Atty. Cecilia Pallarca


    Counsel for Defendant
    1130 Valencia Tower
    Quezon City

    Please take notice that the foregoing Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is requested
    to be heard on 27 September 2003 at 9:30 in the morning.

    MARIA CHRISTINA E. GAVIOLA

    Copy furnished:

    Atty. Cecilia Pallarca


    Counsel for Defendant
    1130 Valencia Tower
    Quezon City

    EXPLANATION
    (Pursuant to Rule 13, Sec. 11 of
    the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure)

    The foregoing Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is served upon the adverse party’s
    counsel by registered mail due to distance constraints and the present lack of manpower to
    personally serve the same.

    You might also like