Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 108 views

    Castro vs. Pabalan 70 SCRA 477, April 30, 1976: Facts

    Uploaded by

    Hazel Lomonsod
    The document summarizes a 1976 Supreme Court of the Philippines case regarding the validity of a search warrant issued by Judge Pabalan. The search warrant lacked specificity regarding the offense, failed to properly examine the applicant or witnesses, and did not particularly describe the place to be searched or things to be seized. The Supreme Court ruled the warrant invalid as it violated constitutional requirements for particularity in search warrants and failed to demonstrate probable cause.

    Copyright:

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

    Castro vs. Pabalan 70 SCRA 477, April 30, 1976: Facts

    Uploaded by

    Hazel Lomonsod
    108 views1 page
    The document summarizes a 1976 Supreme Court of the Philippines case regarding the validity of a search warrant issued by Judge Pabalan. The search warrant lacked specificity regarding the offense, failed to properly examine the applicant or witnesses, and did not particularly describe the place to be searched or things to be seized. The Supreme Court ruled the warrant invalid as it violated constitutional requirements for particularity in search warrants and failed to demonstrate probable cause.

    Original Title

    5

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document summarizes a 1976 Supreme Court of the Philippines case regarding the validity of a search warrant issued by Judge Pabalan. The search warrant lacked specificity regarding the offense, failed to properly examine the applicant or witnesses, and did not particularly describe the place to be searched or things to be seized. The Supreme Court ruled the warrant invalid as it violated constitutional requirements for particularity in search warrants and failed to demonstrate probable cause.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    108 views1 page

    Castro vs. Pabalan 70 SCRA 477, April 30, 1976: Facts

    Uploaded by

    Hazel Lomonsod
    The document summarizes a 1976 Supreme Court of the Philippines case regarding the validity of a search warrant issued by Judge Pabalan. The search warrant lacked specificity regarding the offense, failed to properly examine the applicant or witnesses, and did not particularly describe the place to be searched or things to be seized. The Supreme Court ruled the warrant invalid as it violated constitutional requirements for particularity in search warrants and failed to demonstrate probable cause.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Castro vs.

    Pabalan 70 SCRA 477 , April 30, 1976

    FACTS:

    Judge Pabalan ordered the issuance of a search warrant despite failure of the application
    of Lumang or the warrant itself to specify the offense, to examine the applicant as well as his
    witnesses on the part of the Judge, and to describe with particularity the place to be searched and
    the things to be seized. Judge never refuted the assertions when required to answer. Application
    alleged that applicants wee informed and claimed that they verified the report that Maria Castro
    and Co Ling are in possession of narcotics and other contraband in Barrio Padasil, Bangar, La
    Union without specifying the particular place in the Barrio. No complete description of the goods
    and inquiry was brief. Upon actual search, it turned out that it was in Barrio Ma. Cristina and not
    in Padasil.

    ISSUE:

    Whether or not the warrant is valid.

    RULING:

    NO, the warrant is not valid.

    The Constitution requires, for the validity of a search warrant, that there be a particular
    description of “the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.” The Constitution
    is quite explicit that there be a particular description of the things to be seized. That requisite was
    not complied with in this case. That would explain why the searching party felt it had a free hand
    and did take possession of various kinds of goods, including personal effects, which respondent
    Judge himself would have them return. What was aptly characterized as a “major objective” of
    this constitutional provision, the elimination of general warrants, was thus frustrated.

    The averments as to the alleged commission of the offenses imputed to petitioner were
    abstract. As admitted in the challenged order, the inquiry was brief. Subsequently, reference was
    made to “the routine taking of (their oath) and examination questions and answers * * *.” Nor
    can such perfunctory manner in which respondent Judge conducted the required “examination
    under oath” be justified merely because respondent Lumang was “a Sergeant of the PC, with a
    long service behind (him).” Moreover, contrary to the Rules of Court, he did not even bother to
    take the depositions of the witnesses in writing, attaching them to the record. There was thus a
    manifest and palpable violation of the constitutional standard as to the quantum of proof to show
    the existence of probable cause.

    You might also like