Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 351 views

    Pleadings Motion To Suppress Evidence

    Uploaded by

    Edcel Andes
    1. The accused, Nelson Ramos III, filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence Unlawfully Acquired regarding drugs and paraphernalia seized from his residence pursuant to a search warrant. 2. The search was conducted without the accused or any family members present, and without the presence of two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality, violating Section 8 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. 3. The motion argues that the evidence seized should be declared inadmissible under the exclusionary rule in Article III, Section 3(2) of the 1987 Constitution relating to the unreasonable search and seizure provision in Section 2, due to the failure to comply with the legal safeguard requiring

    Copyright:

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

    Pleadings Motion To Suppress Evidence

    Uploaded by

    Edcel Andes
    351 views3 pages
    1. The accused, Nelson Ramos III, filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence Unlawfully Acquired regarding drugs and paraphernalia seized from his residence pursuant to a search warrant. 2. The search was conducted without the accused or any family members present, and without the presence of two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality, violating Section 8 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. 3. The motion argues that the evidence seized should be declared inadmissible under the exclusionary rule in Article III, Section 3(2) of the 1987 Constitution relating to the unreasonable search and seizure provision in Section 2, due to the failure to comply with the legal safeguard requiring

    Original Title

    Pleadings Motion to Suppress Evidence

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. The accused, Nelson Ramos III, filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence Unlawfully Acquired regarding drugs and paraphernalia seized from his residence pursuant to a search warrant. 2. The search was conducted without the accused or any family members present, and without the presence of two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality, violating Section 8 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. 3. The motion argues that the evidence seized should be declared inadmissible under the exclusionary rule in Article III, Section 3(2) of the 1987 Constitution relating to the unreasonable search and seizure provision in Section 2, due to the failure to comply with the legal safeguard requiring

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    351 views3 pages

    Pleadings Motion To Suppress Evidence

    Uploaded by

    Edcel Andes
    1. The accused, Nelson Ramos III, filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence Unlawfully Acquired regarding drugs and paraphernalia seized from his residence pursuant to a search warrant. 2. The search was conducted without the accused or any family members present, and without the presence of two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality, violating Section 8 of Rule 126 of the Rules of Court. 3. The motion argues that the evidence seized should be declared inadmissible under the exclusionary rule in Article III, Section 3(2) of the 1987 Constitution relating to the unreasonable search and seizure provision in Section 2, due to the failure to comply with the legal safeguard requiring

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3
    At a glance
    Powered by AI
    The document discusses a motion to suppress evidence filed by the defense in a criminal drug possession case. The defense argues that evidence seized from the accused's home should be suppressed because the search was conducted without the accused or family present and without two witnesses as required.

    The accused is being charged with violation of Section 11 of R.A. No. 1965 for possession of dangerous drugs (shabu/methamphetamine).

    The defense argues that the search of the accused's home was invalid because it was conducted without the accused or any family member present and without two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the locality as required by law.

    Andes, John Edcel Q.

    (201921165) LAW 124 Remedial Law 1 (Criminal Procedure)


    Block 2-C

    Republic of the Philippines


    REGIONAL TRIAL COURT
    National Capital Region
    Branch 105, Quezon City

    PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES


    Plaintiff,
    -versus- Criminal Case No. ___________
    For: Violation of Sec. 11 of R.A. No.
    1965 (Possession of Dangerous Drugs)

    NELSON RAMOS III,


    Accused
    xx--------------------------------------xx

    MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED

    The ACCUSED, by counsel, respectfully moves for the suppression of objects seized on
    September 30, 2020, based on following considerations:
    1. That the search performed in the accused’s residence, pursuant to the Search Warrant No.
    0707 issued on September 28, 2020 was not made in the presence of the accused or any
    member of the accused’s family. Neither was the search made in the presence of two
    witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.
    Discussion

    1. That the search performed in the accused’s residence, pursuant to the Search Warrant No. 0707 issued
    on September 28, 2020 was not made in the presence of the accused or any member of the accused’s
    family. Neither was the search made in the presence of two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion
    residing in the same locality.
    1. Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court state that “No search of a house, room, or any other
    premises shall be made except in the presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member
    of his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion
    residing in the same locality.”
    2. Search warrant No. 0707 dated September 28, 2020 was issued on the same day, which
    directed any peace officer to search the accused’s residence, and to seize and take possession
    of an “undetermined amount of shabu (methamphetamine) and drug paraphernalia”.
    3. A search was conducted two days later, on September 30, 2020 at 3 pm, pursuant to said
    search warrant, while the accused was out of the house and none of his family members were
    present, wherein several sachets of said drug were seized from the residence of the accused,
    including a notebook supposedly containing the accused’s suppliers for said drugs and their
    contact information.
    4. There were no witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality
    presented by the authorities. The witnesses they produced were unknown to the accused and
    his neighbors and were found to be residents of the neighboring area of the police station in
    which the authorities were assigned.
    Andes, John Edcel Q. (201921165) LAW 124 Remedial Law 1 (Criminal Procedure)
    Block 2-C

    5. Art. III, Section 2 of the Constitution states that “The right of the people to be secure in their
    persons, houses, paper, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures of whatever
    nature and for any purpose shall be inviolable.” The conduct of above-mentioned search,
    which violated the ‘two-witness rule’ under Section 8, Rule 126 of the Rules of Court is
    patently unreasonable for failure to comply with said safeguard provided by law in the
    implementation of search warrants.
    6. Art. III, Section 3 (2) states that any evidence obtained in violation of Art., Section 2 of the
    Constitution shall be inadmissible for any purpose in any proceeding. For this reason, the
    items seized from the accused’s residence is inadmissible as evidence.
    WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that all objects seized under the void Search Warrant No.
    0707 and its purported authority be declared INADMISSIBLE under the exclusionary rule in Article III,
    Section 3 (2) in relation to Section 2 of the 1987 Constitution.

    Quezon City; 6 October 2020.

    (Sgd. Atty. John Edcel Andes)


    Counsel for Accused
    [Brgy. Holy Spirit, Quezon City]
    Andes, John Edcel Q. (201921165) LAW 124 Remedial Law 1 (Criminal Procedure)
    Block 2-C

    NOTICE OF HEARING

    Atty. Juan Dela Cruz


    Counsel for the Plaintiff
    123 Gil Puyat Avenue, Makati City

    Greetings: Please take notice that the foregoing Motion to Suppress Evidence shall be submitted
    for the consideration and approval of the Honorable Court on Tuesday, October 6, at 2 PM or as soon as
    counsel and matter may be heard.

    Atty. John Edcel Q. Andes

    COPY FURNISHED:

    Atty. Juan Dela Cruz


    Counsel for the Plaintiff
    123 Gil Puyat Avenue, Makati City

    You might also like